Full text of "The Twelve who are to die : the trial of the socialists-revolutionists in Moscow"

See other formats

CORNELL

UNIVERSITY

LIBRARY

"■"■'' -"^-'^ ^-■.- - -TT ^.—wry..-

'UIJK.UJ«RC3ai

DATE DUE

m! Ai

CA VLORD

PRINTED IN U S A

DK 265.P27 ^" ^"'^^'"'^^ '-''"■^^
welve who are to die

3 1924 028 354 1

The original of this book is in
the Cornell University Library.

There are no known copyright restrictions in
the United States on the use of the text.

http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924028354102

WHO ARE

<^ SEGUI 1L<^
TUO C0R50

^2EZB^2^35

THE

TWELVE WHO

ARE TO

DIE

THE TRIAL OF THE

SOCIALISTS-REVOLUTIONISTS

IN MOSCOW

Published by the Delegation of the Party of

Socialists-Revolutionists ^

Berlin
1922

i^'^/^S ^"^

I. K. KAUTSKY
Preface. The Moscow Trial arid the Bolcheviki

II. W. WOITINSKY
The Twelve who are to Die

III

Tactical positions of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party as

shown by the party records

PREFACE

PREFACE.

THE MOSCOW TRIAL AND THE BOLSHEVIKI.

The Russian Party of Socialists-Revolutionists differs ra-
dically from the Social-Democratic Party; nay, more, both
parties disagree in their basic conceptions of policy and prin-
ciple. Nevertheless, I gladly accepted the invitation to write
a preface to the book on the Moscow trial, pubhshed by the
Party of Socialists-Revolutionists. More than that: I feel
that I not only have a right but am duty-bound to write this
preface, in the name of my social-democratic principles. For
these principles indicate clearly that the proletariat, as the
most exploited and enslaved of all classes, cannot emancipate
itself without emancipating at the same time all those who are
enslaved. A proletarian. Socialist party cannot fulfill its great,
historic mission without making itself the protector of all the
enslaved and oppressed.

For this reason, Marx and Engels took up the cudgels in
behalf of oppressed Poland and raised their voices in defense
of Ireland. For this reason. Socialists always fought for the
liberation of native peoples suffering under the colonial do-
mination of imperialist governments. And in doing so, Sociar-
lists frequently cooperated with non-socialist, bourgeois ele-
ments. We are, therefore, all the more obliged to come to
the defense of the persecuted and oppressed when they belong
to a party which, like ours, although not always in the
same way, seeks the emancipation of the toilers, a party which,
like purs, had for many years waged bitter, holy war agflinst
the meanest enemy of the world proletariat, — Russian abso-
lutism. The fight waged today by the Socialists-Revolutio-
nists is but a continuation of the old fight. For there is no

substantial difference between an absolutist government
which holds its power by heritage or one which is of recent
creation. There is no material difference between the rule of
a „legal" Czar and a clique that accidentally established it-
self in power. There is no difference between a tyrant who
lives in a palace and a despot who misused the revolution of
workers and peasants to ascend into the Kremlin.

^> And the fact that the new Russian despotism is bonapar-
tist rather than czarist in character makes it all the more
essential for the Socialist parties of the world to come to the

. defense of the Russian Socialists persecuted by this bonapar-
tist regime. For what this regime seeks is to make the Socia-
lists of the entire world its associates in its policy of persecu-
tion, — something which Czarism, for obvious reasons, never
aimed at. The Bolshevists rulers want the Socialists of the
whole world to applaud their persecution of the Socialists-
Revolutionists and Mensheviki, but the time has passed when
they could expect their assertions to pass unchallenged.

The Bolsheviki maintain that their policy constitutes the
only genuine application of Marxism, that it constitutes a

> strict application of the principles of the class struggle. But
the oppression and persecution of workingmen, belonging to
another current of Socialist thought, and for no other reason
than that these workers prefer to interpret Socialism in a man-

^ner different from the Bolsheviki, is in sharp contradiction with
these class-struggle principles. We, Marxian Social-Demo-
crats, in common with nearly all other Socialists, stand for
democracy and for the right of unrestricted political propa-
ganda for all political parties. This right of unrestricted
propaganda we must, aoove all, demand for all the Socialist
parties in Russia. It is quite inevitable for the respective So-
cialist parties to find themselves frequently in disagreement
with one another. But this must be expressed only in a
struggle of argument, in a struggle for the soul of the pro-
letariat. Socialists who resort in this struggles against the
opinions of other Socialists to guns, bayonets, Che-Ka orga-
nizations and jails are committing an acf of violence against
the proletariat and the idea of the class struggle.

Even the Bolsheviki themselves feel this. For this reason
they seek to excuse their regime of violence in the eyes of the

Socialists of the entire world by asserting,' like the wolf in the
old fable, that ^the sheep are trying to pollute the water which
they, the Bolsheviki, forsooth, seek to maintain unpolluted.
To convince the world of the truth of this claim was the chief
purpose of the Moscow trial. By this trial the Bolsheviki
sought to destroy not only physically but morally the fore-
most representatives of the Socialists-Revolutionists. But the
trial produced quite the opposite effect. It resulted in the
moral victory of the accused and the moral execution of the
accusers.

The Bolsheviki were first to use violence against other
Socialists. They dissolved the Constituent Assembly not by
way of resistance against any violence on the part of the
Socialists-Revolutionists and Mensheviki but because of their
realization of their own inability to obtain the support of the
majority of the peasants and workers by means of free pro-
paganda. This was the fundamental cause of the Bolshevist
coup d'etat against the representatives of the revolutionary
workers and peasants. Hence, the abolition of all rights of
all other Socialists who refused to submit to the crack of the
Bolshevist whip. Hence, the establishment of a political re-
gime which leaves but one form of open, political action for
the opposition — civil war. The Social-Democracy was
never averse to the use of violence in resistance against violent
ptoecution. It simply made the advisability of the use of
such violence conditional upon considerations of purpose and
the possibility of success. If the Social-Democracy found it^
self in disagreement with the Socialists-Revolutionists in this
regard, it was not from considerations of principle but of
tactics. But, if I am correctly informed on this point, there
are no substantial differences of opinion at the present mo-
ment between the Socialists-Revolutionists and the Menshe-
viki. Both recognize that an anti-Bolshevist uprising at the
present moment could not be successful and would even, un-
der certain circumstances, lead to a result diometrically oppo-
sed to that sought, by provoking foreign and reactionary inter-
vention. Armed uprising against the Bolsheviki, at the pre-
sent moment, would only delay the process novv in progress
in Russia and pregnant with great consequences, — the pro-
cess of the desertion of Bolshevism by the proletarian and

.-^*;t..

peasant masses and their return to the other Socialist parties.
This process represents a deadly danger for the Bolshevist
dictatorship. The real crime of which the Socialists-Revolu-
tionists are guilty before the Bolsheviki at the present moment
is not in the preparation of terroristic acts and armed upri-
sings, but in fliat, like the Mensheviki and perhaps even to a
larger extent, the Socialists-Revolutionists, w^hose ranks are
constantly growing in number, are acquiring in ever increa-
sing measure the confidence of the toiling masses of Russia.
This bids fair to bring about the complete isolation of the
Bolsheviki in a short time, so that the only ones who will
stand behind them will be a few capitalists and the Red Army.
Nor is the army, too, likely to continue its support of the Bol-
sheviki very long, for military dictatorships must have mili-
tary successes abroad and cannot thrive merely upon suppres-
sion of uprisings of hunger-driven peasants. In vain do the
Bolsheviki seek to stem the tide against them. The only thing
they still command in full is the art of destroying their oppo-
nents by means of falsehood and violence. They have shown
a complete lack of understanding of the pre-requisites under
which alone Socialist ' production is possible, as well as entire
lack of perspicacity in determining the conditions essential for
the development of capitalist production. In their aspiration
for the realization of Socialism they have destroyed Russia's
entire machinery of production, while their present effort to
patch it up with the assistance of capitalism carries the danger
of aggravating this destruction. But even should they succeed
in establishing a new capitalism in Russia and to resume pro-
duction with its assistance, they would do so in the presence
of a proletariat which they themselves have rendered unfit for
struggle and resistance.

In both cases, misery and poverty will continue to reign
in Russia for many years and will continue to fan apathy and
despair, on one side, and uprisings, provoked by the despair
of the masses — on the otiier. The Moscow trial was in-
tended to distract the growing opposition of the masses
against the Bolsheviki and direct popular wrath against the
Socialists-Revolutionists. How vain the effort! The arrow,
in falling, struck the ones who fired it.

The Bolsheviki hoped to represent the accused Socialists-
Revolutionists and their entire party as allies and associates
of the counter-revolution and foreign powers. To accom-
plish this aim, they did not hesitate to employ the most shame-
less and dishonest methods of the regime of the old police.
They outdid the limitless shamelessness of that regime, whose
prosecutors, as is well known, needed but a few lines penned
by the accused to send him to the gallows. With all that,
however, the Bolsheviki secceeded only in exposing the mean
depths of their own soul.

When the counter-revolution suppressed Marx's „Neue
Rheinische Zeitung", in 1849, Freiligrath branded this act in
words of fire as contemptible violence. He said: ,,This is not
an open blow in an open fight. Against me are barbarism
and meanness. This blow has been struck against me by the
forces of sneaky, dirty, despicable Asiatic barbarism".

The defendants in the Moscow trial were likewise struck
not by an open blow in an open fight. The blow struck
against them was delivered by the hired, contemptible, low
hirelings of Tartar or Kalmyk socialism.

But how innocent was the despicableness assailed by
Freiligrath in comparison with the despicableness revealed
by the Bolsheviki in the Moscow trial! The shameless false-
hood, contemptible cowardice and devilish cruelty of the pro-
secutors, judges and secret service men revealed in the Mos-
cow trial are unprecedented in the history of the world and
will mark one of its most shameful pages.

How heroic do the figures of the accused men and women
appear and how disgusting and pittiful are the pack of hounds
who demanded their blood, who hurled insult and humiliation
upon them in their eagerness to persecute them in order that
they might revel in their suffering!

The moral loftiness of the accused and the moral degene-
ration of their accusers at the trial were so selfevident and con-
vincing, that the whole thing formed a picture of remarkable
clarity and produced an indelible impression upon everybody,
with the exeption of the pack of bloodthirsty hounds hired
by the Moscow executioners to defend their miserable case in
the European press and who were low and mean enough to
do it. *

The accused Socialists-Revolutionists saved the honor of
Socialism, trampled by the Bolsheviki. The names of Gotz,
Timofeyeff and their comrades will be enshrined in the hearts
of the M^orkers of the entire v^orld, regardless of party affi-
liations.

Never did the Bolsheviki descend to their present low
level. Time was when we knew many of them as honest
fighters and idealists. But the coup d'etat of 1917 placed
them in a false position, which was bound to lead consis-
tently to their inevitable and ever-growing perversion.

From the very beginning, they founded their power upon
falsehood and violence directed against the proletariat, upon
the principle that the end justifies the means. This principle
always and inevitably leads to the degeneration of the party
applying it, for it perverts the party and paralyzes those who
do not oppose this perversion.

# Parties who aspire to great aims cannot afford to use
any other means than those these aims demand. A party who
seeks the emancipation of the proletariat cannot, in its efforts
to gain and hold power, use means which disorganize* and
demoralize the proletariat. But it was only by such means
that the Bosheviki could strengthen their hold upon Russia
and, therefore, they preferred the destruction of the Russian
and the weakening of the world proletariat to understanding
with the other Socialist parties of Russia, which alone could
secure the establishment of a revolutionary regime that would
support itself upon the broad masses and give these masses
that freedom without which it is impossible for them to pro-
mote their spiritual development and economic wellbeing.

By resorting for the sake of the strengthening and pre-
servation of their power to measures leading to the weakening
and dissolution of the proletariat, the Bolsheviki have shown
that they are not concerned with the emancipation of the pro-
letariat but are simply a clique concerning itself solely with
the preservation of its own power.

This attribute of Bolshevism makes it akin to the heritage
of the French Revolution: bonapartism. Like bonapartism,
Bolshevism is founded upon falsehood and violence. But
both the first and second Empires marked the opening of
new eras of economic prosperity for France and could, there-

12 . .

fore, support themselves not only upon the capitalists and
peasantry but also upon the broad masses of the people.
Bolshevism, on the other hand, has destroyed Russia and set
all the people against it. Its falsehood and violence, there-
fore, exceed the falsehood and violence of French bonapar-
tism. And for this reason, despite its falsehood, meanness
and cruelty, Bolshevism w^ill not be able to maintain itself as
long as did the regime of Bonaparte in France.

The Moscow trial constituted a desperate effort on the
part of the Bolsheviki to discredit their most dangerous oppo-
nents at the present moment in the eyes of the Russian and
world proletariat. They sought to represent these opponents
as associates of the counter-revolution and thus rehabilitate
the prestige of Communism, which has lost the sympathies
of the overwhelming majority of the proletariat.

But tlie Bolsheviki lost the trial. It is not the accused
but the accusers ai^d their hirelings who today stand con-
demned in Russia and throughout the world. This trial,
which provoked the deepest, universal contempt, revealed even
to those who hitherto still failed to see the truth, the utter
decay and degeneration of the Bolshevist regime.

But the Moscow trial is merely one of the episodes
incident to the world-wide, historic conflict conducted by
Bolshevism. Out of this conflict it will emerge discredited
and condemned. A regime like that of the Bolsheviki has
already grown rotten-ripe for destruction. It is impossible
to foresee yet when and how it will fall but one thing can be
said now and with absolute certainty:

BOLSHEVISM WILL FALL IN SHAME AND DIS-
GRACE, BEMOANED PERHAPS ONLY BY THE SPECU-
LATORS OF THE CAPITALIST WORLD, BUT ACCOM-
PANIED BY THE CURSES OF THE ENTIRE WORLD
PROLETARIAT STRUGGLING FOR EMANCIPATION.
THAT IS THE LESSON AND THE HISTORIC SIGNIFI-
CANCE OF THE MOSCOW TRIAL.

K. Kautsky.

The Trial of the Socialists-
Revolutionists in Moscow

pFy"

''-^^^^1

"Hi

■™r

k^^l

■ 2^

•

:—._

A.R^Qot2— A.P.rou

Cette tribune rlous TaVons utiUs^e pour conter A la classe-ouvrierfe »a

notre actiViti pass^e. ... j' ,V . . w *

Et si cette confessioii que nous falsons est appelee adevenir notre
testament, nous accomt)lirons iusqii'au but notre devoir revolutionnaire.
*Oui, h^las! nous' n'avons pas signe de pacte avec la victoire, 11
nous Teste, k present, k signer un pacte avec la mort, .... _ ^ .
J'ignore ce qUe le sort nous prepare: la vie ou la mort. Si cest
la mort, nous mourrons en r6volutionnaires, en la regardant vaillam-
ment en face; si c'es,t la vie, nous continuerons k lutter en sociali^tes
de- toutes forces au nom des interets de la classe ouvri^re. .A-Ootz

.'>5W

Diese Buhne benutzen wir, um der Arbeiterklasse von unserer
friiheren Tatigkfcit zu berichten. ... / )

Und sollte dieses Bekenntnis unser Testament sein — wir werden
unsere revolutionare Pflicht bis zu Ende erfiillen.

Ja wir haben mit dem Siege keinen Pakt geschlossen und miissen
dafttr ietzt einen Pakt mit dem Tode schlieBen. . . .

Ich weiB nicht. was uns das Schicksal beschieden hat: den Tod
Oder das Lebert. 1st es der Tod — werden wir als Revolutionare
sterben, dem Tode kuhn in^ Angesicht blickend; ist es aber das
Leben — werdeh wir als Sozialisten auch weiter mit aller Anstrengung
zugunsten der Arbeiterklasse k ampfen . ... A- Qotz

We have taken advantage of this pulpit to relate the story of
our former activity to the working classes. ...

If this credo is fated to become our legacy, we shall nevertheless
do our duty as revolutionaries to Jthe bitter end. Alas! It is true^
that we had not taken Victory infBr partnership and therefore now
we must pay the perlalty of partnership with Death. ...

,1 am not sure whether it is Life or Death that Fate holds in store
for us. If it be Death, we shall die as revolutionaries looking it
Straight in the facei if it be Life, we shall work oh as socialists
straining every effort in the interests' of the working class. A- Ootz

' Sjy Tpj(6yrty mw McnoJib30Ba;iH Wi« xoro, mto6h pascKaaaTfe
pa6oHeMy kJiacicy o CBoeu npouuioii A-feaTCJibHOCTM ....

H ecJiH &Toft Hauievi McnoB'feftH cyacaeHO dyaexb craTb HatUHMT*
^aei^iuaHieMi* — hu BbiHonHiiMi> cBoii peBoniouioHHbivi nonri> ao KOHi;a.

fta, — yftw ! — iihi He aaiciioHMJiH aot-oBopa ct» n o 6 -fe a o ii h bti
paciuiaTy aa axo HaMi* ocTaexcH aaioiioHMTb xenepb ^oroBOpii co

CMepXbK). ...

^ H He dnaio, hxo cy»AeHo HaM-b cyj^bCoii: ^iiSHb hjih CMepXb. Ecjiu
CMepxb, — Mbi yMpeMii Kaicb peBo;iK>uioHepki, cm^jio rnfl^ff eii npHMO
wh rnasa; ecjitf xcH3Hb, — mu tyji^ewb u AaJibuie 6opoxbC» c6 BctMi*
HanpflxceHieMii chjii KaKi» coqiajiHCXbi bo hma HHxepecoBi> pa6o4ard
toiacca. ... #^ ■ A. ToiVb

' ' * .

Pouiili jsme Uto tribuny, abychom povidili dilnicke tHdi o sv6
nekdojif {tfisobndsti. ... ,

A jestli 2e teto naSi zpevSdi bude souzenb, aby se stala naSi zaviti/
•plnili {sme svou revoluCni povinnost ai do konce.

Ano «->- Beda my jsme nouzavf ell dohody s'Viteistyixn a od-
platou za to feat nam nyai uzavFiti doliodu se smrtt ...

Nevim, GO nam o6udem bude souzene, zda iivot nebo smrt.

JeiiUie smrt, -^ zemfeme jake revolucionifi, smele bledece smrti
pffmo do o2i* jettilie iivot-y$emi silami jakoite socialisti i nad&le
Dudem z4pasiti v« jmcau zajmu diliiicke tHdy. ... A- Qotz

This trial, which tes touched to the quick the cdnscience
of the civilized world and has united in an outburst of protest
all tendenties of socialist and democratic thought, all sections
of '^e labor movement, -^ this uiiprecedented trial has been
concluded with a ihonstrous Verdict.*

Twelve men who have sacrificed their youth, their life
and all their strength to- the cause of the emancipation of the
workers and peasants of theii; country, to the cause of the
Russian Revolution and International Socialisi|i. have been con-
demned to death by a court, ► pretending to be the bulwark; of
defense of the interests of the Revolutibn and Socialism.

, 'Xbe is thrown abo:ut: t^eir flecks but .those who

hold the rope have not yet tightened it. They are; stijl waiting.

What are they; waiting for? ' Do they expect the condem-
ned, weakened by the psychic tortures to which they and their
near ones are subjected, to fall upon their knees bef pre them?
Dp they /expect that the party tq which the condemned belong
wiiuyfor the sake of preserving their lives, abandon itsstruggle
against the Soviet Government? No. r It is: not thattiiat the
Bolsheviki expect. They have simply chosen to postpone -the
execution to a moment suitable for them.

The fight is on for the lives of The Twelve Who Are To
Dte. y ' '■' :■■ ■ ■'■■•■.;^'.-.- '^ '^. ' --■-/^.-■■^ '.,■■•;• *■--/-.•. ' . - ,■-'■

The purpose of this pamphlet is to contribute, if- in small
measure only, to the triumph of the truth in this fight.

" The reader will find on these pages some information
concerning the condemned as well as tho^e who accused arid
tried them, the preparations for ^d development of the trial,
the verdict arid' the echoes it provoked in Europe.

i Jn trying to give as exact a picture as possible of the
events bearing upon the Moscow trial, the author availed

, ., . ■ . -■ '^^ ■ .... : ' ;f.i7

■I'fl'^l;:---' :.

himself of the reports of Bolshevist newspapers, Soviet radio
grams, information supplied by the foreign members of the
defense w^ho participated in the early proceedings, the testi-
mony of eyewitnesses and official documents. The author
must admit that all these sources fail to give a complete pic-
ture of the case. Some sidelights, particularly unwelcome to
the Soviet Government, remain untouched, but ihe facts and
data which despite the efforts of the Bolsheviki to conceal them
have come forth to the surface are sufficient to enable us to
form an opinion in the Moscow trial.

The author of this pamphlet is a Social Democrat, a mem-
ber of the party which differs in tactics from the party of
Socialist Revolutionists. And it is not considerations of party
politics but those conceptions of principle and right common
to the Socialists of the entire world which determine .hl$
attitude in the matter.

The Condemned.

Who are these twelve, sentenced to death by the Moscotf
tribunal for counter-revolutionary activity? Here are their
names, dear to the whole of Revolutionary Russia.

1. Abraham Gotz; entered the Revolutionary Movement
in 1900; beginning with the year 1904 one of the> most ac-
tive members of the fighting brigade of the Socialist Revolu^
tionists, the organization so terrifying to the Czarist Govern-
ment. Under his direct participation were organized attempts)
at assassination upon Minister of the Interior Durnovo, the
suppressor of the Moscow rebellion in 1905, General Min and
Colonel Riman, Minister of Justice Akimoff, the Mayor of
Moscow Schuwaloff and the head of the Czarist Secret Ser-
vice and Assistant Director of the Department of Police, Rach^
kovsky; his record is imprisonment in the fortress of St. Pe-
ter and Paul, in ejtpectation of execution, trial by court martial,i
eight years of hard labor and exile to Siberia, where the Re-
volution of 1917 found him.

2. Eugene Timofeyeff; entered the revolutionary move-
ment in 1900; sentenced by a Czarist court in 1905 to five
years of hard labor and resentenced, shortly before the com

18 - i

elusion of his term, to 10 years; liberated from prisibn by
the Revolution.

3. Gendelman, entered the revolutionary movement in
1898; in 1901 sent into the army as a private for participation
in student disturbances; spent about 3 years in Czarist prisons.

4. Donskoy; entered the revolutionary movement in
1897; sent into the army as a private for participation in stu-
dent disturbances; exiled thrice; spent 6 years in Czarist
prisons.

5. Eugenia Ratner; joined the Party of Socialists-Revo-
lutionists in 1903; arrested ei^ht times under the Czarist
regime; spent more than 6 years in Czarist prisons.

6. Gerstein; self-educated workman; in the revolutio-
nary movement since 1898; previus record: four and half
years' imprisonment and five years exile.

7. Nicolai Ivanoff; entered the revolutionary movement in
1906; member of the fighting brigade of the Party of Socia-
lists-Revolutionists; participated in the preparation for and
the assassination of the Chief of the Prison Administration
Maximoff, sentenced to death by the party for cruel treatment
of political prisoners; also participated in the plot to blow up
tiie Imperial Council in 1907; spent ten years at hard labor;
was arrested by Kolchak but escaped death by flight.

8. Lichatch; entered revolutionary movement in 1903;
spent two years in jail and six years in Siberian exile under
the Czar.

9. Sergei Morozoff; member of the Party of Socialists-
Revolutionists since 1905; sentenced twice to hard labor;
spent seven years athard labor in various prisons.

» 10. Nicolai Artemieff ; entered the revolutionary movement
in 1903; in exile four times, spending part of it in the Tiir-
chansk district of the Polar region.

11. Helen Ivanova; entered the Party of Socialists-Revo-
lutionists in 1905; member of the fighting brigade of the
Party of Socialists-Revolutionists; cooperated in the assas-
sination of the Prison-Chief Goodim and the Police Chief of the
Ochtinsk section Rodziersky, who was guilty of severe tor-
tures of workmen in cells under his supervision; she also
organized the assassination of the chief of the Petrograd pri-

- 19

son „Kresty", and participated in the assassination of the Chief
of the Prison Administration Maximovsky; condemned to
death in 1908, the sentence being commuted to hard labor
for life; regained her liberty with the revolution.

12. Vladimir Agapoff, the youngest of the condemned;
entered the Party of Socialists-Revolutionists in 1909; exiled
to Siberia under the Czar.

And thus the Twelve Who Are To Die have a total re-
cord of 240 years' service to the Revolution and the cause of
the emancipation of Russia and a total record of 70 years' im-
prisonment. Five of them wore prison chains, two of them
stood upon the gallows — Gotz and Ivanova — , two of them
served two terms at hard labor. And it is these people
whom the Bolshevist Government is attempting to represent
as dangerous enemies of the revolution, as fierce foes of the
toiling masses. And in preparing to murder them the abso-
lutists of the Kremlin are seeking to convince the world that
the salvation of the revolution demands the blood of these m^n
and women. ^

The foregoing dispassionate figures do not however give
the reader any idea of the spiritual makeup of the Twelve
Who Are To Die. All of them entered the political struggle
at that period of the Russian Revolution which knew neither
commissars residing in Czarist halls, nor the lure of news-
paper notoriety, nor brilliant careers made possible b^^ flattery,
servility, cruelty and disregard of means and method; they
joined the revolutionary movement at a time when the calling
of a revolutionist brought neither emolument, authority nor
honor, when the lot of a revolutionist was suffering, danger,
humilitation. And, true to themselves, they followed un-
flinchingly the road they had chosen.

The representatives of the Socialists Internationale, who
met them for the first time in a Bolshevist jail, immediately felt
the flame that burns in the hearts of these Twelve and their
comrades.

Here is what Emil Vandervelde wrote of the accused in
the Moscow trial:

„Every day we visit the jail where the Socialists-Re-
volutionists are confined — an old structure of dark,

blood red hue. It is one the few places where people still
dare to speak, — perhaps the only place I observed in
Russia where human beings spoke freely, gaily, in unsub-
dued voice, disregarding whether or not the eye of Mos-
cow is directed upon them. They are facing death.
They are facing long imprisonment, but they laugh, they
are gay, gay with the gayety of those who prepare to
do battle for a dear cause.

„I have no space to describe for you all the accused.
But out of the common background of their heroism
stand out some of the brightest figures:

„Eugenia Ratner, — one of the two women in this
great trial. Alas, the youth spent behind prison walls,
first czarist and then under Lenine! But what a miracle
to see her strength of character, unshaken by these ex-
periences, combined >^ith joyous grace, with love of life
and unbounded faith in the ultimate triumph of the cause
to which she has consecrated her life burning in her black
eyes. ,

„Timofeyeff, former member of the Samara Govern-
ment, overthrown by Kolchak. Before the war he was
in Siberian exile. There he commanded such influence
both among prisoners and administration that everybody
called him „the prison chief". It is he who is entrusted
to deal with questions of foreign policy at the trial. We,
his counsel, are called upon to defend him, to save him,
but he thinks only of attack, of turning the trial instituted
against him and his comrades into a trial of his enemies.

„If Timofeyeff is the minister of foreign affairs of
this group, Gotz appears as leader of general poHcy. I
met him in Petrograd in 1917. He was vice-president
of the All-Russian Parliament of Labor, — the All-Russian
Congress of Soviets. In our prison conferences Gotz
always acts as spokesman for the accused. He comes of
a well-to-do-family. His life need not have been a hard
one. But with exception of a few months of liberty, in
1917, he spent most of his life in exile and in jail". , ^

(Brussels „Peuple".)

The other members of the defense, too, spoke and wrote
of the accused as heroes. „We have no such people in our
country!" said Kurt Rosenfeld in deep emotion.

We would like to add a few words to these opinions:

The author of these lines had the good fortune to
work with some of the condemned in the revolutionary mo-
vement. He made the acquaintance of some of the others in
Siberia, at the Alexandrovsk penitentiary. The prisoners there
belonged to various parties: Mensheviki, Socialists-Revolutio-
nists, Bolsheviki, and anarchists. But there was no one among
us who did not cherish the deepest respect and warmest
sympathy for Gotz and Timofeyeff. Both of them were
the „representatives" of the prisoners in their relations with
the administration, both of theni were regarded by the com-
rades as representatives of the noblest revolutionary tradi-
tions — fearlessness before the foe, stoicism in trial and dan-
ger, and devotion to the common cause. Nor can the Bolshe-
viki who were prison partners of Gotz and Timofeyeff have
forgotten them. Why, then, did not these former comrades
of the present condemned speak out in protest in the course
of the trial? Why did they not cry out to their party followers,
intoxicated with blood and power: „Halt!"

One would have thought that at least some of the Bol-
sheviki, would feel the prick of conscience. One would have
thought that at least those of the Bolsheviki whose lives Gotz
had saved at the risk of his own head from the hands of in-
furiated mobs in the July uprising of 1917, would have come
forward to speak a word of protest. No! No Bolshevik
dared not violate his party „discipline".

Writing to a member of the Moscow Government Gorky
said:

„If the trial of the Socialists-Revolutionists results in
murder it will be preconceived, contemptible murder, I beg
you to transmit this opinion to L. D. Trotzky and the others.
I hope it will not surprise you, for throughout the revolution.
I have pointed out repeatedly the crime and stupidity of root-
ing out the intelligenzia in our illiterate and uncultured
country. '

„Today I am convinced that the murder of the Socialists-
Revolutionists would provoke a moral blockade of Russia by
the whole of Socialist Europe".

But the murder of political opponents has become too
common an occurrence for the Bolshevist government and
Gorkys ' condemnation as ^preconceived murder" of the latest
Bolshevist crime is not sufficient to prevent it. For this kind
of murder is not a matter of recent development stet the
Bolsheviki: This is the fifth year since the blood of workmen
and peasants began to flow in Russia. And nothing has
been done to stop it. The Moscow absolutists were able to
„put it over", for there remained in Europe and in America
a sufficient number of people ready to see in the Soviet Go-
vernment the torchbearer of the triumphant revolution. Was
there anything to prevent the Bolsheviki from carrying out
another experiment?

The Moscow trial is the last link in the long chain of
persecution of Socialists in Soviet Russia. A brief explana-
tion of the character of these persecutions will enable the
reader to understand what the Supreme Tribunal which tried
the Socialists-Revolutionists represented.

11.
The persecution of Socialists in Russia.

The persecution of Socialists in Russia began almost
from the very first day of the seizure of power by the Bol-
sheviki. At first scattered and chaotic, these persecutions
eventually assumed the form of a regular, definite system,
embodied in a whole series of specially created government
bodies, and became one of the goverment^s main objects and
one of the chief functions of the Communist „cells".

This follows from the very nature of Bolshevism. The
basic idea of Bolshevism is the dictatorship of the minority
over the majority, of the party over the working class and all
the people. This idea determined and defined the life road
of the Bolshevist Party. Having started out with the idea of
the necessity of its dictatorship in the interest of revolu-
tionary em ancipation of the toiling masses, the Bol-

shevist Party arrived at the poirit inevitable for any dictator-'
ship — to despotism, to merciless suppression of ail sel^
f reliance and independent activity of the people, to the denial
of all pfrinciple for the sake of the nalced preservation of its
power. .Thus a government which has come into power in
the course of revolution and has preserved all superficial at-
tributes of revolutionary substance has in reality revived all
the despotic methods of Czarism and has destroyed all the
conquests of the revolution.

There is no greater danger for the Bolshevist Government
than the awakening of class the consciousness and independent
activity of the masses of workers and peasants, for once the
masses realize their interests and their power they will ine-
vitably seek to take power into their own hands and will hurl
their absolutist rulers — no matter under what flag they may
be sailing — off their necks. Right here is the source of all
bolshevist hatred against the Socialist parties in Russia, who
not only defend the principle of democracy and popular rule
but are the representatives of activist self reliance of the toilers,
of the workers and peasants.

The Mensheviki are anathema to the Moscow Govern-
ment as the class party of the proletariat, and the Socialist-
Revolutionists, as the party competing with the bolsheviki for
support of the peasantry. Which is the most dangerous enemy?
; This has long been a matter of dispute among the Soviet ochra-
niks. Some of the chekisty beieve that the Mensheviki are most
dangerous because this party may eventually move the
worker's battallions against the Bolshevist dictatorship. Others
worker's battallions against the bolshevist dictatorship. Othexs
consider that the greatest danger looms from tlie Socialistic-
Revolutionists because the peasant masses, once under tiieir
influence, may wipe out all the results of soviet experimen-
tation. These two tendencies in this theoretical dispute have
found a compromise in the persecution of Mensheviki, Socia-
lists-Revolutionists and non-partisans. This takes the form
of jailing, exile or execution of all those whose work threatens
to stimulate the activity and self-consciousness of the masses
or to promote the solidarity and independent organization of
the workers and peasants. In other words, the motives and
purposes which actuated Czarism in the persecution of Socia-

lists are the same which actuate the Soviet Government today.
The representatives of authority have changed but the old
despotic order remains, and that is why the prison cells con-
tinue as before to be filled with political prisoners and the
personnel of these „politicals" under theBolsheviki, in its
overwhelming majority, continues the same.

But arrests, imprisonment- and exile are not the only
measures employed by the Soviet Government in its struggle
with heresy: the chief measure'is execution, capital punishment.

The Bolsheviki assert that they resort to capital punish-
ment as a hecessary means of defense of the workers' and
peasants' government against counter revolutionists, against
„tiie enemies of labor". This assertion is contradicted by the
fact that sincet the establishment of the Bolshevist government
in Russia there has been no cessation of mass executions of
workers and peasants. It is sufficient to recall such events
as the shooting up of the workers' demonstration in defense
of the Constituent Assembly in Petrograd, January 5, 1918;
the mass slaughter at Astrachan, when thousands of workers
were shot, sabered or drowned in the Volga for demanding
bread, -— to be more exact, for demanding the reestablish-
ment of free trade in grain; the bombardment of Elisaveipol
in Azerbaidjan, when 20 000 mussulmen, in the overwhelming
majority workers and peasants, were murdered; the repeated
;5hooting of strikers in all large cities of Soviet Russia; the
firing upon workmens' meetings for adoption of anti^bol-
shevist resolutions; the shooting of peasant hostages for the
desertion of recruits or in reprisal for the activity of partisan
detachments; the shooting of peasants or the destruction , of
whole villages for non-payment of grain taxes.

Who will undertake to measure the blood of workmen
and peasants shed in those terrible days of 1918 when a
wave of execution of hostages in reprisal for the assassination
attempt on Lenine swept the whole of Russia?

And here is another illustration: In evacuating Sarapul
at the height of the civil war in 1918, the Bolsheviki, finding
it difficult to take their local prisoners along with them, de-
cided to clear the jails by mass execution of all inmates.
Among those killed was a leader of the Petrograd and Ural
workers, member of the Central Committee of the Socialist-

Revolutionist Party, the worker Ivan Teterkin. Many other
workers perished with him.

Take the following case: in 1921 the Bolsheviki loaded
a barge with 600 prisoners taken from various Petrograd
jails with orders to deliver them to Kronstadt. On reaching
a deep point between Petrograd and Kronstadt the barge was
sunk. AH the prisoners, with the exception of one who suc-
ceeded in reaching the Finnish shore, lost their lives.

Here is another illustration:

Hand in hand with mass executions in Soviet Russia,
there are also individual executions of Socialists. Thus in
Astrachan, in .1918, there were executed 15. Socialists-Revo-
lutionists, assembled for a proyincial conference. Thus in the
famous Saratoff „ravine", in 1918 — 1919, fifteen hundred
human beings, gathered by special blacklist or seized at ran-
dom, lost their lives. Ainong them rest the bodies of a
number of prominent members of this party. Thus in the
Kuban, in 1920, were executed leaders of the struggle against
Denikin, peasants whose influence upon the population was
feared by the Soviet Government. Thus in the same year,
following the occupation of Baku, the Bolsheviki murdered the
leaders of the local labor movement, among them the Socia-
list-Revolutionist Zimin, who had exposed the slaughter of 26
Bolshevist commissars by Denikin (the Bolsheviki explained
later that Zimin was killed by mistake).

The memorandum submitted April 2, 1922, by the Party
of Socialists-Revolutionists to the Berlin conference of the
three Internationales points out that among those who peri-
shed was the old revolutionist and member of the Party of
Socialists-Revolutionists, Strumilo-Petrashkevitch, the party
veteran Alexander Turba, the member of the Constituent As-
sembly and representative of the peasants of his district Go-
relin, the wellknown local party workers Timofeyeff, Cl^ari-
onoff, Livsin, Kurbattoff and others.

There is hardly a province or a city in Russia that has
not witnessed the execution of Socialists within the past few
years. Among the victims are names known throughout
Russia:

Onipko, member of the First Duma and hero of the
Kronstadt revolt of 1905.

26 .-^r-W;":.

Almazoff, wellknown educational leader and writer.
Cohan-Bernstein, an old Socialist-Revolutionist and party
worker.

Boris Flekel, accused of being Kerensky's secretary,
which, by the way, he never was.

Samuel Fineberg, one of the most prominent leaders
of the Socialist-Revolutionist Party in Siberia.

Concerning the latter we may add the following details:
a' prison comrade of Gotz and Timofeyeff and their close
friend, Fineberg no doubt would have been tried arid sen-
tenced to death together with them had not the Bolsheviki
executed him long before without trial. They executed him
as a „counter-revolutionist" at Irkutsk, the very same Irkutsk
which was captured by the Socialists-Revolutionists from
Kolchak after two days' battle and where the Socialists-Re-
volutionists released from jail some 1000 prisoners, princi-*
pally Bolsheviki, stet there by Kolchak from all parts of
Siberia. Fineberg's past record was death sentence, fifteen
years of hard labor and many years of imprisonment in the
most terrible of all Czarist prisons, — the Orloff „zentral".

Is it still necessary to ennumerate here other proletarians,
Social-Democrats, murdered by the Bolsheviki, or to list the
„crimes" for which they were executed? Here they are:

Tuliakoff — workman, member of the Fourth Duma,
leader of Mie Don region; executed on order of the Che-Ka
in 1918.

Krakowsky, a workman of the Sestrorietzk plant; exe-
cuted by the Tamboff Che-Ka as a „counter-revolutionist".

Samushkin, executed at Vitebsk in October, 1918, for
distributing leaflets among representatives of the local con-
ference of factory employees, arrested in a body by the Bol-
sheviki.

Levin, chairman of the Ribinsk soviet of trade unions.

Rom, secretary of the same organization.

Sokoloff, chairman of the Ribinsk Workmen's Sick Benefit
Fund and of the local Social-Democratic Committee, executed
for leading a twenty, four hour strike called in support of the

demand of freedom of trade union organization, cessation of
the terror and modification of the government's food policy.

. Anarchists and Socialists-Revolutionists of the left wing,
who in October, 1917, helped the Bolsheviki in their coup
d'etat, have been executed by the bolsheviki with even lesser
concern.

We have not attempted to enumerate all Socialists who
have perished in Soviet Russia. These are but a few lines of the
endless book, bul they are sufficient to illumine the psychology
of the Bolsheviki, who cannot understand the cause of the
mighty protests raised by the Socialists of Western Europe
against their attempt to hurl into the bottomless grave of
their victims the corpses of twelve more Socialists.

, The reader who may desire to familiarize himself more
thoroughly with this phase of soviet reconstruction will find
some additional details in the anthology „Tche-Ka", in „Two
Years of Travail" by Dan, in the memorandum presented to
the Berlin conference of the three internationales by the So-
cialist-Revolutionist Party, in the columns of the „Socialisti-
chesky Viestnik", „Revoluzionnaya Rossia", and other So-
cialist publications abroad. The reader will also find therein
some detailed information concerning the tortures to which
prisoners are subjected by the Soviet Government to compell
,;sincere confession". For this, too, is one of the means by
which the Bolsheviki fight heresy. As under Czarism, this
method is rarely applied to political prisoners more or less
well-known. But simple workmen and ignorant peasants
who fall into the hands of the Che-Ka are, together with pure
criminals, subjected to merciless assaults and painful tortures.
In such cases the weapons of the Che-Ka hangmen are na-
gaikas, blackjacks, knives and the butt ends of rifles and
revolvers. But the most favored weapon of the Komintern's
servants is torture by threat of death. After putting a person
through examination he is stripped naked and put up against
the wall. He is then fired upon, with the bullet whistling
past his ear, the impression suggested being that the shot
missed its mark. ' The questioning is then resumed or the
man is taken back to his cell with the explanation that this
was merely the rehearsal. Sometimes he is informed that

28 , . . :# ^

% . .-.■.mk-

his father, mother or wife would be shot. By this method
the man is forced to confess or to squeel, followino^ which
either the man who confessed or the person he has betrayed
is executed. v

The mere physical annihilation of opponents, however,
does not satisfy the Bolsheviki. They seek also what they
term the „m'oral annihilation" of those who stand in their
way. This is achieved by slandering and calumniating ac-
cused and prisoners. Every wholesale arrest of Socialists,
every tranfer of them from one prison to another, every case
of exile, every assault on prisoners, every execution, and
especially every trial, is accompanied by a stream of slander
and abuse in the columns of the press. And there is no
chance of reply or defense, for all newspapers in Russia are
in the hands of the ruling party. The mouth of the opposition
is shut. How free indeed is life for the Radeks, Bucharins and
Stekloffs! How free they are to lie, slander and villify their
enemies, for the latter are disarmed, defenseless, bound hand
and foot, silent as the grave that awaits them. Nowhere and
at no time were liars, professional and natural, been so well
armed as under the soviet regime. ,^^j.

All this is woven into a regular system. Such „moral
annihilation" of opponents is regarded as of too great im-
portance to entrust it entirely to the press, for in this work
the publicicts of the Komintern have the assistance of Che-Ka
investigators, prosecutors and judges. ,^

It is only necessary to recall the government announce-
ments of plot discoveries — long-winded announcements
in which the names of Socialists are purposely intermingled
with the names of reactionaries. Some of these announce-
ments reach the European press, which has now learned, how-
ever, to understand these inventions as excuses for new re-
pressions. Arrests, exile, executions are the purpose. The
mventipn of plots is the means. These, however, are some-
times reversed, when the purpose of the bolshevist ochrana
is to slander a hated party. In such instances a „case" is
framed up. To cover up the stupidity of the charge the ac-
cused are sentenced to death. To prevent possible exposure
the condemned are murdered in the cells of the Che-Ka. ^

>>,-^^: ■'.

Only those cases are brought to public trial which have
„a propaganda value", i- e. those where the purpose is to
slander the accused. And the judges understand well what
the SovietGovernment expect of them. It would therefore
be entirely naive to expect impartiality, independence of judge-
ment or respect for law on the part of Soviet judges. There
is no difference whateve in the moral level or judicial con-
science of a Soviet judge or prosecutor, and a Che-Ka exe-
cutioner. The judge, prosecutor and executioner receive the
same orders: to do the will of the powers that be and put the
intended victim out of the way. The only difference is that
the judge and prosecuter work by the light of day, while the
executioner works in the darkness of the dungeon cell.

The bolshevist prosecutor's ever present assistant is the
provocateur. This creature's work is surrounded with pa^^
ticular glory under the Bolshevist regime.

, All the elements herein mentioned were at work in the
Moscow trial: the twofold purpose of physical and moral
annihilation, the accompaniment of the trial by a press cam-
paign, the presence of judges representing the Che-Ka and of
prosecutors with the mental make-up of executioners, torture
by keeping the victims in suspense, humiliation and mockery
of the accused. v

The people demanding bread are offered the spectacle
of executions. This spectacle is surrounded by a superficial
form of judicial procedure, in proof of the fact that the
establishment of „lan and order" in the country in no way
indicates that the Soviet Government has in any way rendered
itself helpless against heresy. This is intended to reassure
the ruling party, to raise the spirits of its memb^ers and to
give „intellectual food" for propaganda.

Thus under all despotisms does terrorism have its ebb
and flow. Its forms change in accordance with the fear or
sense of security that may animate the government at given
moments.

The material in the case of the Socialists-Revolutionists
was supplied to the Moscow goverment by the provocateurs
Semionoff-Vassilieff and Kono^liowa. ..

III.

Provocateurs in the service of the Soviet Government.

Semionoff and Konopliowa, whose names have recently
appeared so frequeently in the press, are not particularly
sbriking characters. Their chief characteristics are complete
amorality and a perverted taste for strong sensations.

Semionoff made his first appearance in political life in
1917. He was a private attached to an engineers regiment
of the 12th army and, with the revolution, was chosen a
merrber of the army committee by his regiment. He termed
himself a Socialist-Revolutionist, and since with the outbreak
of the revolution and the downfall of Czarism all revolutio-
nary parties in Russia worked openly and above board, with-
out scrutinizing carefully the vast stream of new members that
poured into their ranks, there was no particular objection to
Semionoff s admission into the party. He was admitted with-
out close questioning as to his origin and as to how he came
to embrace Socialism and the revolution. The other stages of
his development are outlined in his socalled confession, —
the pamphlet published by the Soviet Government in Berlin,
in preparation for the trial of the Socialists-Revolutionists, and
in the testimony of witnesses, given partly at the trial or
published in the European Socialist press. At the time of
the October coup d'etat Semionoff worked with the military
committee attached to the Central Committee of the
Party of Socialists-Revolutionists. At this early point, at
the end of 1917, he already came into conflict with the party
because of his demand for terroristic action against the Bol-
sheviki, in contradiction with the policy of the party. (1.)

After the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly Se-
mionoff and Konopliowa organized a fighting brigade of
their, own, composed of several workmen and a few inex-
perienced youths.

In the name of his group Semionoff suggested to the
Party of Socialists-Revolutionists the organization of a terro-
ristic campaign against the heads of the Soviet Govern-

(1) See Semionofts Berlin pamphlet.

went. The Central Comittee rejected the suggestion. (2)
Despite this, however, a member of the Semionoff group, a
certain workman Sergeyeff, assassinated Volodarsky on
meeting him accidentally in the street. The Central
Committee of ihe Party ^ of Socialists-Revolutionists publicly
disavowed this act. Semiohoff was severely censured, being in-
formed that he deserved the- severest piinishment for breaking
the party discipline, particularly under the difficult circum-
stances then existing. (3) Unfortunately the party could not rid
itself of this dangerous adventurist. : Semionoff soon came
forward with a series of other irresponsible projects, all of
which met with the. same rejection and disapproval. He
then launched^ upon several terroristic enterprises with-
out the sanction of -and in defiance of . the . party's respon-
sible organs/ in the:se he deceived his M^^ by telling
them that tie adeci wi^h the approval of the Central
Committee, (i) Thus iie carried out expropriations of a purely
criminal character, organized and prepared, assassinations,
etc. (2) :

Semionbff was arrested in the summer of 1918, at the
height of the civil war. While a prisoner on the Lubianka he
attempted to escape after firing: upon. a guard. He was cap-
tured and was confronted by the prospect of certain execution.
He then addressed a plea for pardon to Lenine, got into com-
munication with Dzjersinsky, chief of the Bolshevist gendar-
merie, and obtained his release^ 'Me left prison a fuUfledged
member of the Bolshevist Party entrusted with a special, con-
fidential task : to work in the party of Socialists-Revolutionists
as an informer. Great indeed must have been the service of
this man to the bolshevist hangmen and exeptionally low must
he have revealed himself to obtain not only his own amnesty
and freedom but also an honorable place in the ranks of the
Russian Communist Party.

(2) This fact was clearly established at the trial.

(3) See the testimony of B. Rabinovitch, „Golos Rossii", No. 918.

(1) This was corroborated by all witnesses at the trial. 2 articu-
larly interesting information on this point is found in the testimony
of M. Tislenko, published in „Golos Rossii", No, 923.

(2) See Semionoff's Berlin pamphlet.

32 '.

EM. Timofeeff — E. M. THMo$eeB ;

Nous avons seirvi ravenir et ' ne voulons sqf ir que lul. Vos
laurier^ actuels he nous tentent pas et ne nous ferons pas abandonner
hqtre vole. . ; . • Timofeev

Wlr dienten der Zukunit und wollten nur Ihr dienen. Eure Qesen-^
wartslorbeeren locken uns aber nicht und ihretwesen werden wir von4
unserem Wege nIcht um Haaresbreite abweichen. . . . Timofejew

We have worked for the Future, we intend to work for It and for
nothing; else; your present power has no attraction for us, therefore
we would never go out of our way to attain it. .. Tirtiofeleff

Mu CAy^KHJiH CyAyiueMy u xothm cjiyiKHTb TOJibKo eay. BauiH
;iaBpbi coBpeMeHHocTu nacb He coCnasHflioT-b h pa^H hmxi mu hu
B-h HeMi He OTCTynHMi oti cBoeii cTeavt. . . . THtiLO^eeB'b

'^""^"^

Slouiili }tme budouenotti a pouze ji chceme tlou2iti. Vale
tavfiny pKtomnotti n&» nelekaji a my pro ni v ni£em neseideme te
•v4 cMty Timofeiev

There is reason to assume, that at that time Semionoff re-
vealed to the Soviet ochrana all details of Volodarsky's assassi-
nation as well as all the material which was to form the basis
of the trial three and a half years later. But at that time thefe
was much talk of abandonment by the Party of Socialists-Revo-
lutionists of its armed struggle against the Soviet Government,
the jjlegalization" of the- Party and amnesty for its members.
This was not a convenient moment for making use of tiiis
material. :; • .:.^ . ■ :.

Be that as it may, the Bolsheviki realized that tiiey had in
Semionoff a valuable acquisition, for in Soviet Russia there is
a great demand for provocateurs. As early as in 1918, the So-
viet Government adopted the policy of employing provoca-
teurs in the ranks of ilie Socialists-Revolutionists and Menshe-
viki. Later in its career the Soviet Government organized a
network of provocateurs extending beyond the fondest dreams
of the Gzarist police. -

The ochranniks of the Third Internationale recruited their
army of provocateurs by the method employed by the Czar's
gendarmes — by threat of execution. An investigation in the
Butyrki prison has revealed that between November, 1920, and
February, 1921, no less than 150 men, or 40% of the priso-
ners, were approached by agents of the Che-Ka with the pro-
posal to do provocateur work. 30 % of these were threatened
with execution as an alternative.

Thus, on becoming an agent of the Che-Ka, Semionoff
found before him many competitors. The majority of these,
however; were small fry, creatures low and miserable, but
not beyond the measure characterizing their usual, professi-
nal requirements. Semionoff- Vassilieff and Konopliowa advan-
ced rapidly in their new work and having won their spurs as
common, vulgar traitors and informers were soon promoted
-to the position of pillars of the international, communist revo-
lution.

The „Sozialistichesky Viestnik" contributes the following
additional information on Semionoff s career:

„During the Russo-Polish war Semionoff was arrested
by the Poles with a group of other Russians accused of espio-
nage. All of the prisoners were executed, with exception of
Semionoff. Instead we find him working immediately after-

.^ 33

ward as agent for Boris Savinkoff, this condotiere of the reac-
tion and himself an agerit for Pilsudsky. After receiving from
Savinkoff some cash and instructions Semionoff returned to
Moscow and ..... at once reported to the Che-Ka, where
he declared that Savinkoff entrusted him with the task of
assassinating Lenine. He revealed to the Che-Ka the names
of Savinkoff s other agents and his plans for the destruction of
strategic reilwciys, arsenals, etc. It was then that the Bolshe-
vik! first attempted to utilize this provocateur's „sincere con-
fession" as the basis of their frame-up against the Socialists-
Revolutionists. The Che-Ka announced officially that a cer-
tain ^witness" (whose name it kept secret) had exposed the
close cooperation of the Socialists-Revolutionists with Savin-
koff's agents. Because of that, the Che-Ka announced, the
members of the Party of Socialists-Revolutionists would be
held as hostages and would be executed immediately in event
of assassination upon any member of the Soviet of Peoples
Commissaries.

„But the blow aimed at the Socialists-Revolutionists fai-
led. The idea of their plotting with Savinkoff, the friend of
Wrangel and the mad Burtzeff, was so monstrous and impro-
bable that even the Communists themselves did not believe it.
Dzjersinsly himself, head of the Che-Ka, personally visited
Gotz and the other leaders of the Socialists-Revolutionists in
Butyrki prison and informed them that the Che-Ka's threat
would under no circumstances be carried out.*'

But what the Bolsheviki did not venture upon in 1920,
they undertook without scrupple two years later. -

In February, 1922, Semionoff published his Berlin pamphlet,
allegedly intended as an expose of the military and terroristic
activity of the Socialists-Revolutionists. The pamphlet appa-
rently constituted a repetiton of the material supplied by Se-
mionoff to Dzjersinsky at the end of 1918 and the beginning
of 1919. In his pamphlet Semionoff discusses his own work
as member of the Party of Socialists-Revolutionists during
1918, „directed against the interests of the peasants and wor-
kers", and reveals the crimes of the enemies of the Soviet Go-
vernment.

The pamphlet is written in the classic style of the police
informer. Pictures of expropriations, murders, a*ttempts at

assassination, and especially names, names and names, follow
upon each other with kaleidoscopic speed. Altogetiier no less
than 93 persons are incriminated in the small pamphlet. If
during his sojourn in Warsaw Semionoff has betrayed as
many persons to Savinkoff, and as m.any more upon his re-
turn to Moscow from Poland, then, indeed, is he fit to occupy
a leading place among the authors of the Moscow trial, and
quite correct was Frossard when in his correspondence to the
„Humanite" he characterized him as a perfect type of commu-
nist, physically and morally.

The general substance of Semionoff 's testimony is that
the Central Committee of the Socialists - Revolutionists
was aware of all his (Semionoff's) martial enterprises and
approved them secretly while disavowing them publicly.

Vandervelde gave a juridical estimate of the value of this
testimony in a few words: '

„Semionoff s entire accusation rests upon the allega-
tion tiiat the assassination plots he carried out were un-
dertaken with the approval of the Central Com-
mittee, each of which, however, were regularly disavo-
' wed by the Committee. Nevertheless he continued enginee-
ring his plots, and the party continued to disavow
them, while he, despite this conduct of the Central
Committee, persisted in manufacturing new assassination
plots, fs this likely? It is quite clear that all this is pure
invention on the part of Semionoff, concocted long after,
in cooperation with those who inspired him."

Vandervelde's conclusion is: „No normal cotirt could
possibly accept such testimony". The leader of the Belgian
proletariat does not seem to know, however, that such testi-
mony is in accord with old gendarm traditions: district attor-
neys under Czar ism would always aim, in revealing at a trial
the name of a witness-informer, to utilize this name and testir
mony in as great a number of cases as possible. The author
of this book, while serving a term in the Ekaterinoslav jail,
made the acquaintance of an old semi-illiterate railway guard
upon whose testimony and information the Czarist district
attorney based his accusation against 102 anarchists (the old
guard himself figured in the trial as the 103rd dedendant). The

"I* 35

impression aimed at was that the witness knew about all the
expropriations and assaults canled out or contemplated
throughout the province. He was supposed to have spoken per-
sonally with the leaders of these anarchists and thus there
could be no doubt that the entire group was collectively
responsible in every case. Thus, under Czarism, a provoca-
teur's testimony underwent thorough preparatory dressing be-
fore it was offered at the trial. The Bolshevist ochranka could
not abandon this good, old method, tried and true. It could
not forego the preparatory, literary confession of its agent. It
felt itself obliged to coach hun to show him how to group
and illumine his facts, what to add and what to eliminate —
for do not two or three words or an accidental conversation
with members of the Central Committee of the accu-
sed organization alter the entire perspective of a situation? It
is natural therefore that Semionoff s Berlin pamphlet and his
testimony in court should have been the collective product of
the Che-Ka's creative genius. -i

Comrade Vandervelde will say this makes the testimony
as a whole unworthy of trust and deprives it of any value in
the eyes of a normal court! But what can we do? The Cza-
rist gendarmes never hesitated to make use of such testimony
and the new Red gendarmerie differs from the old only in
greatei" ignorance and shamelessness.

IV.
On the eve of the Moscow trial.

With the appearance of the first report from Moscow oh
the proposed trial of 47 Socialists-Revolutionists "before the
Supreme Tribunal for alleged terroristic acts and with the
very beginning of the bloodthirsty cries of the Communist
press in Russia and abroad it became clear to everybody that
what was being contemplated in Moscow was a peculiar
species of judicial murder.

At the conference of the three intemationales in Berlin
(in April, 1922) the Socialists of Europe demanded that the
Bolsheviki abandon their terror in Russia. The Bolsheviki na-
turally rejected this demand, but being badly in need of a

„united front" with the Socialists of Western Europe at that
moment (the eve of the Genoa conference) and as the Western
Socialists, true to their bourgeois, traitorous character, refused
to form a united front with hangmen and executioners, the re-
presentatives of the Third Internationale added their signa-
tures to those of the representatives of the Second and Vienna
Internationales to a gene;-al declaration which contained the
following references to the proposed Moscow trial:

„The conference takes note of the declaration of the
,.> -representatives of the Third Internationale to the effect
that all counsel who may be chosen by the accused would
be admitted to the trial of the 47 Socialists-Revolutio-
nists; that, as has already been poined out in the soviet
press prior to the conference, there will be no death sen-
tences imposed at this trial; ^ and that, in view of the
public hearing of this trial, representatives of all three
Executive Committees (i. e. of the three Internationales —
. V. V.) may be present as observers, who will be permit-
ted to take stenographic records fort the information of
the parties represented by these executive committees".

This agreement made possible the participation of repre-
sentatives of Western Socialist Parties at the trial. This agree-
ment was unfavorably received in the Kremlin. In an edito-
rial, in the „Pravda", April 11, under the heading „We Have
Paid Too Much", Lenine said:

„In my opinion, our delegates acted improperly
when they agreed to accept the following conditions: 1)
that the Soviet Government will not render a single death
verdict in the case of the 47 Socialists-Revolutionists; and
2) that representatives of the three Internationales would
be permitted to be present at the Trial. These conditions

represent nothing else than a political concession

But what are the concessions made to us by the interna-
tional bourgeoisie? The answer is: none. What, there-
fore, are tlie conclusions to be drawn from this. In my
opinion, Radek, Bucharin and the other representatives
of the Communist Internationale acted improperly in
making concessions without assuring for themselves
corresponding concessions by the other side. This need

. • 37

not, however, lead us to the conclusion that the agree-
ment should be nullified. Such a conclusion would be
wrong. We must simply draw the lesson that in this
case the bourgeois diplomats proved themselves more
skillful than our own and that we must learn to ma-
neuvre and act more skillfully in the future".

Thus, after upbraiding his unskillful envoys, the supreme
ruler of Soviet Russia none the less accepted the declaration
signed by them and agreed to by the Executive Committee of
the Communist Internationale, as binding upon the Soviet Go-
vernment. But in May of this year, i. e. not more than a month
after the foregoing agreement had been concluded, the Rote
Fahne launched a campaign intended to prove that the Berlin
agreement was in no way binding upon the Bolsheviki, The
Bolsheviki, the papei contended, would be idiots if they under-
took to carry out the obligation they assumed with regard to
the admittance of counsel. This, however, appeared for some
time to be merely the opinion of this „independent" Commu-
nist organ. The Moscow government did not venture imme-
diately to declare the obligations it assumed a scrap of paper.
It did not venture to do so even after it had already been com-
pelled to abandon its hypocritical efforts lor the establishment
of a „united front" of the Socialist parties of Europe. Thus, upon
he dissolution of the Committee of Nine (the committee chosen
to represent the three Internationales following the Berlin con-
ference) the Communist delegate Radek thought it necessary
to declare officially that the failure of the „united front" nego-
tiations in no way nullified that part of the Berlin declaration
bearing upon the pending trial of the Socialists-Revolutionists,
Considering themselves bound by the declaration the
Bolsheviki agreed, after distinct hesitation, to admit foreign
counsel. But the role they had assigned these foreign attor-
neys from the very beginning in the forthcoming trial is mani-
fested in the following leader taken from the „Pravda" of
April 11. \

„The Second Internationale has transmitted a commu-
nication demanding the admission of ten social-traitors,
lackeys bf the bourgeoisie, as counsel for the Socialist-
Revolutionist incendaries and murderers. Among these
fellows is a former bourgeois minister of France and

38 /

)'•:.■■,■

three Russian Socialists-Revolutionists, who are themsel-
ves guilty of the treachery and crimes of their party col-
leagues (we use the word „party" reservedly). The very
list itself is a monument of brazeness. . . . Proletarian
Russia has succeeded in crushing her foes but she is not
yet secure against possible treacherous blows from the
rear. And if the Second Internationale ventures to send
here its „favorites", permitting them to make use of its
trademark, it must expect a corresponding welcome for
them on our part. By the Berlin agreement we have
agreed to admit freely-chosen counsel to the court trial.
We will carry out this obligation the letter. But so far
as the situation outside the limits of the court is concer-
ned, these gentlemen must be so treated as to protect our
country against their espionage and the incendiary tac-
tics of these rascals, who on one hand engage in the
murder of labor's leaders and, on the other, are too co-
wardly to admit it, continuing all the while to burn, to
lie and to deceive those of their misled comrades whom
they assign to the most dangerous posts".

Is it possible to conceive anything more brazen than the
style and tone of this editorial? Yet it shows the
„Pravda" to be conscious of the obligations of the Berlin
agreement. This made it possible to continue negotiations
with the Bolsheviki with regard to the organization of the de-
fense. Finally, Vandervelde, Waters, Kurt Rosenfeld and
Theodore Liebknecht (the first two being representatives of
the Belgian Labor Party and the others of the Independent So-
cialist Party of Germany), supporting themselves on the Berlin
agreement, left for Russia, knowing full well that what awai-
ted them were insults, humilitations and even possible perso-
nal danger.

The representatives of the Socialist proletariat of Europe
arrived in Moscow May 26. The trial began June 8, i. e.
there were actually two trials with a double purpose: first
the „moral annihilation" of the Soviet Government's enemies
and, second, the preparation of the ground for their murder.
On one hand, the Bolsheviki unleashed a campaign of „popu-
lar wrath", and, on the other, combined with this campaign of
slander, proceeded the comedy of the trial.

V. :
Staging of Popular Wrath.

The purpose of the Bolsheviki in this campaign was not
simply to prepare public opinion for the execution, for if the
moreexecution of twelve more Socialists had been the purpose
the Bolsheviki could have accomplished that without the bea-
ting of tom-toms, — under the guise of „le fuga". somewhere in
the vicinity of Moscow, for example. The problem the Bolshe-
viki had set for themselves Was to c o m p e 1 1 the workers to
demand the execution and by the campaign of villificatron
against the accused* and their counsel to raise the spirit within
the Communist Party itself and encourage Bolshevist senti-
ment among the non-partisan workers.

On the very frontier of Soviet Russia the represenfatives
of the Internationale rushing to the defense of the Socialists
were met by a hostile demonstration. Such demonsrations
marked the rest of their journey to Moscow. The Soviet! press
was enthusiastic in its reports of these demonstrations. Lack
of space forbids reproducion of these reports. We will con-
fine ourselves to the characterization given of this staging of
„popular wrath" by Martoff in his „Sozialistichesky Viest-
nik":

„In Sebezsh, Velikija Luki,^ Volokolamsk and, finally, at
the Windau railway station in Moscow crowds were assem-
bled, driven together by the authorities, composed of Che-Ka
agents and Communist appointees.. These crowds, represen-
ting allegedly the „Russian proletariat" attacked the train bea-
ring the counsel for the defense with the demand that they ex-
plain their „counter-revolutionary" action .in offering to de-
fend the accused Socialists-Revolutionists. At the frontier sta-
tion of Sebezsh, the population of which, outside of some Je-
wish tradesmen, consists of contrabandists and Che-Ka spies,
who work together on a „fifty-fifty" busis, there suddenly
appeared upon the scene the „vanguard of the world proleta-
riat", fully conversant in the sins of Vandervelde and eager
to interrogate him as to why he signed the Versailles peace
treaty. Naturally, this „vanguard" was already fully aware,
long before the opening of the trial, that the assassination of

Volodarsky and the attack on Lenine were organized by the
Central Committee of the Party of Socialists-Revolu-
tionists and that the very willingness of the counsel for the
defense to appear in their behalf was tantamount to partici-
pation in the crimes. No less englightened was the „prole-
tariat" at Velikija Luki, with this addition: that the„prole-
tariat" of this world centre was entrusted with the task of
bringing „moral pressure" to bear upon the representatives
of the 2nd and 2V2 Intenationales by smashing the train win-
dows and, according to the correspondent of the London Daily
Herald, by firing upon the train. The shot was probably fired
by some Che-Ka agent transformed for the occasion into a re-
presentative of the Russian proletariat".

The preparations made for welcoming the defense at the
Windau station in Moscow were of a more elaborate charac-
ter. Here is what happened, according to the „Pravda" of
May 27:

„As early as one o'clock organized groups of people,
singing and with flags and banners, began assembling about
the Windau station. One huge banner depicted the King of
Belgium, with Vandervelde beside him. Beneath the por-
traits, in huge letters, was the following inscription: „Mr.
Royal Minister Vandervelde, when will you be brought to trial
before ihe revolutionary tribunal?"

„Another banner, addressed to Liebknecht, bore the le-
gend: „Cain, Cain, where is thy brother Karl?"

„Other banners were decorated with the inscriptions:
„Down with the defense of those whose hands are steeped
in the blood of the workers!" „Shame on Theodore Lieb-
knecht, defender of his brother's murderers!" The inscrip-
tions were in various languages: Russian, French and
German."

To complete the picture, there was a choir of singers,
who had thoroughly mastered the special song prepared by
some official poet and bristling with insults against Vander-
velde. Permit me to quote this song in full, as an elloquent
illustration of the cultural and moral level of ^he Kremlin
dictators who had staged this demonstration:

„Vandervelde is coming,
We will meet him merrily, -

Of all tiie Menshevist lackeys
He is the biggest lackey.

He is coming to us.
The universal ignoramus.
The guests, of course, are welcome
But a pity 'tis, my friends
That we cannot hang them here.

Himself a first-class murderer,
The scoundrel realized at once
' That his own end would coine
When we convict the Essers."

In the chaos of shouts, whistling and threats, Kurt Ro-
senfeld managed to catch sight of the leader of this scene, who
himself was busily engaged, with fingers in his mouth, in
adding to shrillness of the whistling. This man was Bucharin,
member of the Socialist Academy of Science, one of the chief-
tains of the Third Internationale, a Jeading grandee of the
Soviet State and Semionoff-Vassilieff's counsel at the trial.

The next day. May 28, the villification of the Socialists-
Revolutionists and their counsel assumed a different form: a
squad of clowns, dressed for the occasion, in gaily decorated
automobiles bearing improvised circus tents, went up and
down Moscow and in indecent verses laid before the public
the „facts" in the „treachery" of the Socialists-Revolutionists,
their alleged robberies and murders of the champions of the
working class.

On a platform in the Tversky Square, not far from Push-
kin's monument, one of these clowns conveyed to the ^public
the „thoroughly established facts" concerning the crimes of
the Socialists-Revolutionists, Mensheviks, Kadets and black-
v^hundreds (all these were, naturally, grouped together). To
make this more convincing, the clown proceeded to kill the
criminals by means of a huge club. First came the effigy of
the traitor Martoff, who immediately fell dead beneath the
fierce blow.- Then came Tchernoff, who, disliking to be killed,
entered into mortal combat with the public entertainer. But

■■*.>;

„virtue" triumphed and the club duly cracked the skull of
the bandit Tchemoff. The same fate befell Vandervelde and
his colleagues.

These entertainments were accompanied by city-wide
meetings. Headed by Trotzky, Bolshevist orators made the
rounds of plantsand factories, delivering inflammatory speeches
and urging adoption of resolutions demanding merciless
treatment and execution for the Socialists-Revolutionists. From
these orators the workers learned that the Socialists-Revolu-
tionists provoked the civil war in Russia, that they were re-
sponsible for the famine, and that all would be well as soon
as these enemies of the working people were put to death. This
information, however, was of secondary importance. The
important thing was that the Bolshevik authorities forced the
adoption of resolutions demanding execution of the Socialists-
Revolutionists, so that in many factories even some nouTpar-
tisans voted obediently with other small bands of workers, in-
flamed and perverted by Communist demagogy, for exe-
cution of the Socialists-Revolutionists.

Such obedience may perhaps appear incomprehensible
to the workers of Western Europe, but you who live in free
countries, jou who have your party and trade union organiza-
tions, you who have freedom of speech, press and assembly
and enjoy at least some human rights, — you must realize
that the proletarian in Russia is a man without any rights
and that he must be of particular courage and manhood to
vote against a resolution proposed by the „great" Trotzky
himself as he appears at some plant and factory, surrounded
by his Che-Ka suite and a special red army guard.

But the Bolsheviki were not satisfied with merely holding
factory meetings and passing resolutions demanding execution
of the Socialists. They also circulated petitions in all factories,
demanding the blood of the accused, and which the workers
were forced to sign.

In many instances the workers refused to sign these calls
to murder.

,0h, you don't want to sign?" asked the Communist^,
„and do you want to lose your job or take a walk to the
Che-Ka?"

The petitions gathered many signatures and the columns
of the „Pravda" and „Izvestia" were filled with the blood-
^vtiiirsty demands.

If you, workers of the West, could read all this raving
nonsense, you would think that the Russian workers are an
aggregation of cruer savages. But, no! These petitions are
a calumny upon the Russian proletariat, a crying misuse of
its name, a contemptible falsehood. For thus have all despo-
tism, wielding the knout and the rifle, always spoken in the
name of the enslaved people. It is not remarkable therefore
that the Bolsheviki succeeded in putting through some hun-
dreds of resolutions in the factories. What is far more im-
portant is the fact that despite all this, voices of protest against
the violeence perpetrated upon their conscience in this cam-
paign were raised by the workers.

Thus, the workman Ivanoff, who was present at the
scene at the Windau station, loudly raised his voice in protest
and opposition. He was immediately arrested and taken to
jail.

At the meeting at the Bogorodsko-Gluchosky plant, the
workman Terentieff turned to his comrades and to the Bol-
sheviki and said:

„Gomrades, whatever the Socialists-Revolutionists may
be, they would hardly drive us, like sheep, to these meetings,
under threat of having our families deprived of food from tiie
government stores and cooperatives; they would hardly de-
mand that we put the stamp of our approval upon the actions
of a government composed entirely of members of a ruling
parly, as you. Communists, are doing. I am an old man and
I need not fear you. I have no fear of threats and, therefore, I
say quite frankly that in 1917, when the Socialists-Revolutio-
nists were in power, we, the workers, regardless of party af-
filiation, felt ourselves, first of all, Russian citizens and not
toiling cattle. We were not compelled then to dance to the
tune you are now playing to please your rulers, who for four
years have been riding on our backs".

In many factories the workers managed to meet secretly,
while the Bolshevist police was not looking, and adopted re-
solutions protesting against the murder of the Socialists-Re-
volutionists that was being prepared. But there was not a

single newspaper in all Russia in which they could make these
protests^ public!

On June 6, the Moscov^^ Soviet debated Radek's report
on the pending trial. Some of the speakers declared that the
Berlin agreement should be disregarded and urged the exe-
cution of the accused without further consideration.

This campaign reached its apotheosis two weeks later,
when, on June 20, the anniversary of Volodarsky's assassi-
nation the Bolsheviki held street demonstrations of workers
arid red army men in Moscow and Petrograd, in support of
the demand for the execution of the Socialists-Revolutionists.
The Red Army men v/ere brought out in -parade formation.
The workers and government employees were ordered to
appear at the points of assembly for rollcall. It was announ-
ced officially that those who participated in the demonsixa-
tions would be given their day^s wages (in some districts they
were offered special meals in appreciation). The workers
were given to understand that the demonstrations would be
used as proof of their „loyalty" and that severe repressions
awaited the nonconformists.

Here are some facts illustrating how the manifestation
of „popular wrath" was engineered in Moscow and how the
workers reacted toward it:

1. The Bogatyr plant. — Although the gates were locked, the
majority of the workers managed to slip away from the meet-
ing by jumping over the fence or sneaking away to the shops.
Of the 2500 employees, not more than 300 or 400 were pre-
sent. The bloodthirsty resolution obtained some 35 or
put the question clearly and definitely: „those who failed to
To this was added the threat of possible dismissal. Yet,
40 votes. The rest did not vote at all. The factory manager
appear at the demonstration would be fined three day's pay",
despite this, not more than 300 or 400 employees of the plant
participated in the demonstration.

2. Kalinkin plant. (Employing 200 workers). — Instead
of adopting the proposed resolution, the workers were called
upon to approve the Communist Party's declaration on the
trial. The audience replied with severe silence. But one
voice was raised: „the resolution should be put to a vote".
It never was. The representatives of the factory committee

/ /

and the factory administration simply announced: those who
will not appear at the demonstration would be dismissed.
This threat proved of little use, however, for but a small
minority obeyed the order.

3. At the office of the Zentrosoyuz a bulletin was exhi-
bited for some days before the demonstration, announcing
tfiat „all participants would be offered a meal". The promise
was duly kept.

4. At a meeting of members and employees of the Trans-
port Division of the Petrograd Consuler's Society 120 of the
iotal membership of 300 were present. The resolution de-
.manding ,„merciless" punishment for the accused received
9 votes, six of which belonged to the administration. This
threw the authors into wild frenzy, accompanied by threat of
dismissal. The resolution was put to a vote five times but
the number of its supporters failed to increase. The resolu-
tion was then withdrawn and the question of participation in
the demonstration, Jume 20, was put, instead. It received
13 votes.

5. Farmazavod No. 2. (120 workers). The resolution
proposed by the chairman received 5 votes. Demands that
speakers representing other parties be heard were made. The
aforementioned 5 participated in the demonstration.

6. The Electric Works. -^ Here peititions demanding
death for the Socialists-Revolutionists were put into circula-
tion several days before the demonstration. The petitions
were taken around the shops personally by members of the
factory committee and administration, who offered it to each
worker individually. But the signatures were few. A preli-
minary meeting was held on the day of the demonstration, at
which not more than 100 of the 1500 employees were present.
Not more than 30 employees participated in the demonstration.

7. Mussky Car Bam. — Here the workers greeted the
Communist orators with cries of protest: „We are against
the death penalty!" The resolution was not even put to a
vote. None of the employees went to the demonstration.

8. Pressnensky Car Barn. — The meeting dispersed as
soon as it became known that the question of the Socialists-
Revolutionists would be considered. The demonstration was
boycotted.

9. Savelovsky Railway Shops (4000 Employees). — Here
the workers had sometime before refused to participate in the
„welcoming" of Vandervelde. Very few appeared at the meet-
ing against the Socialists-Revolutionists. The resolution de-
manding the death penalty received 19 votes. After the
voting the resolution was taken around the various shops,
with threats of repressions. Between 90 and 100 signatures
were gathered. Between 60 and 70 employees participated in
the demonstrations.

10. Moscow Municipal Shops. ^- Thanks to the leaflets
distributed by the Communist Party on the eve of the demon-
stration among the employees of the locksmith shops, it was
unanimously decided not to participate in the demonstration.
On their appearance at the plant the next day they were each
interrogated by the assistant manager as to the cause of their
non-appearance. He then announced that they would be fined
five days' pay (17^2 millions). In the needle shops, the com-
munist „cell" hung up a banner without asking the consent
of the employees as to the slogans. Several score marched
under that banner. (There are 700 employees in the shop6).

11. Clothing plant. — Of the 400 employees 40 agreed to
participate in the demonstration. These included only Com-
munists and candidates for admission into the Communist
Party.,

12. Maikapar Plant. — On appearing at the plant and
■observing a banner demanding death for the Socialists-Re-
volutionists, the workers demanded its removal. The Com-
munist „cell" refused, for which it was compelled to partici-
pate in the demonstration quite alone.

13. Twenty-Seventh Printing House of the Moscow Soviet
of National Ecenomy. — Not a single vote was cast for the
resolution proposed by the communist „cell". The next day^
the „Pravda" demanded in an editorial the dispersal of this
„menshevik nest". No sooner said than done. A new chief,
the well-known Polonsky, was appointed, who despite the
overabundance of work at the plant laid off 200 of the 300
employees until fall. He then called another meeting and put
through the resolution demanding the „highest measure of
punishment" for the Socialists-Revolutionists.

The „Sozialistichesky Viestnik" gave the following ac-
count of the demonstration in the great Presnensky district:

„Not more than 4000 residents of this great districts,
driven together by force, participated in the demonstration.
The workers marched together with the red, army men, who
carried no arms/ There were many women and youths (Bet-
ween 12 and 13 years pf age). The Briansk railwaymeri were .
conspicuous by their absence. The banners bore legends taken
from the „Pravda". The spirit of the crowd was distinctly
dull and humdrum. \ Everybody was in a hurry to see the thing
over and go home! Gharacteristic was the exchange of re- ^
partee between agroup of red army men and several wpmi&n: '

„And what, are ;you, women, doing here?" - oft^
„And'you?" ' '•

„We are govei;nment people, — we were driven here on
orders". • ;-

„Well, and so were we". r

To make the demonstration as imposing as possible, the
government mobilized all the Communist! „cells" as well as
all those workers who still retain some faith in the Bolshevik!,
and who, thanks to ihe daily streams of villification, calumny
and slander pouring out of the pages of the „Pravda" and
„Izvestia", are animated by mad hatred toward the Socialists.
These elements comprised an insignificant minority but they^
were the ones who supplied the spectacle of „popular wrath",^ S

Thus was this demonstration carried out, — a demonstra- ;
tion of workers deceived by Bolshevist demagogy and terro-
rized by the Soviet Government, a demonstration supported |
by the perverted praetorian guards of the Soviet State and the
dreggs of society, who but yesferday were the chief actors ;
in Jewish masisacres under leadership of the Gzarist police and i
now ready to follow their Ghe-Ka leaders whereever they
mi^tlead. -^

At four o'clock, the members of the revolutionary tribu-
nal, prosecutor-general -Krylenko, president of the Moscow f
Soviet Kameneff and the representatives of the Third Inter-
nationale ~Radek, Glara Zetkin, Sadul and Schmeral, appeared
bef of e the mobb f iUihg the Red Square. The first to speak was
Piatakoff,/president of the revolutionary tribunal, who infor-^S^;
med the mob that while he must not anticipate developments ;!|;

48 '■"• ' ■-■■^'

a •ii

D. t). Donskoi - A- fl- AoHCKoii M I. Quendelmann - M, H. f eHAejibkaa

11 ne me reste que 16 bonheur de mourlr avec ceux que ie considire comme mes
amis les plus chers et les plus proches. E. Iwanowia

Mir bleibt nur das ^liick, mit Jenen zu sterben. die mir am nfichsten stchen '
und die ich am meistcn liebe. ._«.»^ '^' ^w*"**^*

The only happiness which I have now is to die with my nearest and dearest.

Mh* ocTaexca tojihko cnacTbe. yMepef b cb t^mh, kofo h cHHTaio

CaMUMH 6JIH3KHMM MHt H JHOOWMblMH JIIOftbMM. E. HsaHOBa

— ■■ ■■ " . ^ 'v-

Ziistalo mi pouze to Stestf, ie zemFu s iind, }e£ pokUddm za
lidi mn£ nejbliiSt a nejmelejSL £• Ivanova

Vous nous accuse! de nt)us pljcer sur ie terrain du social^sme sclentlflque,^ —
nous acc^ptons cette accusation et nous sommes prSts k en assumer la responsabiliti
devant ie proletariat russe et international. C- Ratner

Eure Anklage. wir standen auf dem Boden des wissenschaftHchen Sozialis-/^
mus. erkennen wir als richtig an und sibd bereit, die Verantwortune fQr dieses
Verbrechen sowohl vor dem russischen als auch yor dem jnternationalen Proletariat

cu tragen. .... £• Ratner

■" " ■' ^

You are Justified in accuslns us of Scientific socialism, we admit this accusatioii ;
of yours and are ready to bear the responsability of it before the Russian and
international workers * E. Ratner

Bame o6BHHeHie, mto mu ctomT} na noMBt HayHuaro coi;ia-
nH3Ha •— • MH npHSHaeHii npaBHJibHUM'b m 3a 3to npecTyiuieHie roTOBbi
HecTH OTB'&TCTBeHHocTb H uepcKh pyccKHH'b H nepejo> MevAyHapoA'
HUM-b npojieTapiaTOMT». ... E. PaTHepT»

VaSe nafknuti, 2e stojime na pikdi v^^ckdho socialUmu-prova-
iujeme za spr&vnd a jsme hotovi nii^sii za tento zlodin zodpovi^dnost
pf ed rusk^m a mezinirodnim prbletariiten. . C. Ratner

Pour la cause de notre parti, pour d^masquer votre dictature aux yeux de la
classe ouvri6re, russe et Internationale, pour la cause du socialisme et de la
r^yolution, par ce procis, nous avons fait, nous, prisonniers, plus que nous aurions
fait si nous etions libres. et morts nous ferons Plus que nous n'ajirions pu ffiire
vivants.

A partir du moment o6 nous sommes tomb4s entre vas mains, nous itions sflrs
d'etre condamnds k mort. II nous est indiff(£rent que vous nous amnistiez ou non.
Mais de ce banc vous n'entendrez pas de recours en srace, Gfuendelman

FQr das Werk unserer Partei, fUr die Entlarvung Eurcr Diktatur vor dem
russischen und internatlonalen Proletariat, fiir das Werk des Sozialismus und, der
Revolution haben wir. Qefaneenen. niehr setan durch diesen ProzeB als wenn Sit^ir
in Freiheit wflren; dnd als Toten werden wir mehr tun als die Lebenden hfttten tun
kOnnen. . • ♦ •

, Seit dem AuEenblick, wo wir in Eure Hinde seraten sind. waren wir sicher.
daB Ibr uns zum Tode verurteilen /werdet. Uns ist es EleichsattiE. ob Ihr uns
besnadisen werdet Oder nicht. Aber von dieser Bank werdet Ihr eine Bitte urn
BeKnadieunz nicht zu hfiren bekommen. "^ . Qendelmann

(PortsetzunE auf dem nSchsten Bildblatt ~ Suite au verso de la prochaioe page illustr6e>

he could say with assurance that the tribunal would meet out
severe punishment to those who raised their hand against the
' Soviet Government. "^

He was followed by Radefc, who heaped insults and abuse
■:uppn the foreign counsel qi the accused. Bucharin spoke next.
In his speech he extolled Semionoff and Konopliowa, who pla-
ced at tfie disposal of the Soviet (3ovemment the material for
■ the case against the Socialists-Revolutionists^ - - -

'•■ The mob then passes in review before the members of the
court. Som.e of the judges, on returning to the courtroom,

' order that the accused be brought to the open window, in full
view bf the raging mob below. Those of the accused who
stood at the head of their party, approach fearlessly closest to
the window, ready to be first to meet their death. A block of
wood with the inscription ,, death to the Socialists-Revolutio-
nists" strikes Gotz. The judges laugh, the prosecutor-general
grins with enthusiasm. A look of triumph illumines the coun-

' te^ances of counsel for the provocateurs. . : v 1

- - This amusement continues lor five hours. But the Bols-
vheviki are still unsatisfied. At ten o'clock in the evening, the
president announces that a delegation representing the demon-
stration requests permission to appear .before the tribunal.
: Prosecutor Krylenko „explains" that while such a procedure
is not provided for by the law it is not at all out of harmony
with the spirit of the Soviet Government and is therefore per-
missible. And the „people" being permitted J to, appear before
the fjCourt" there followed the spectacle of a raging mob of
wild, electrified fanatics, degenerate Che-Ka agents and street
bums. Threats, cui;ses and unprintable abuse fill the air.

And Hie judges listened attentive-ly to the „orat6rs", shook
their hands, thanked them for their loyalty to the Soviet
Government and promised to do their best to satisfy the
„people's will". ' ,' ,. ; . . / '■ :

' The Socialisfe-Revolutionists stood this torture for two
and. a half hours, but the experiences of these hardened fighters
are trivial in ^ comparison to the tortui'es. experienced by
th&'.wivesrmothers>nd sisters, 'who had been permitted to

attend the trial as spectators.

"^ I cannot reproduce here the letters of these martyrs of

Bolshevist justice, letters written in their/heart's blood, letters

which it is impossible to read wiihout tears and anger. They
had already bidden goodbye in their minds to their dear ones,
for they were convinced that their last hour had come and
that this terrible day would end in the lynching of the accused.

This, too, was the feeling of the accused themselves, who
preserved their calm self-control to the end, combined with
kind, encouraging smiles for their own people and a gaze of
courageous contempt for the executioners.

But neither the accused nor their relatives realized that
the hired canaille representing the „aroused people" before
the court had received the order to work their tongues but to
keep their hands still, to yell, to curse but not to murder those
for whom the Bolsheviki were preparing another fate. -

The campaign designed to provoke „popular wrath" died
down after the demonstration of June 20. Why? Was it be-
cause the Bolsheviki had been seized suddenly by a sense of
shame? Were they frightened by the impression produced
upon the public opinion of Europe? Did their inventive ge-
nius simply cease working? Or did they decide upon some
new plan? I cannot tell.

Let us see how the work of the Supreme Revolutionary
Tribunal proceeded in the meanwhile. Let us first examine
the mode of procedure.

VI.

The comedy of the trial.

Originally the Bolsheviki had planned to try 47 defen-
dants. After the Berlin conference, this number was reduced
to 33. This included 22 who actually were members of the
Party of Socialists-Revolutionists. They constituted the „first
group of defendants" at the trial. Next to them sat the „se-
cond group", composed of ten persons, headed by Semionoff
and Konopliowa. These were turnocoats, who had deserted,
the Socialist-Revolutionist camp and most of whom had long
ago entered the Communist Party and had secured bdorehand
the mercy and forgiveness of the ruling cast by betraying their
comrades.

The defense was divided similarly: The „first group"
was defended by the Russian attorneys Muravioff, Tager and
others, and by tiie representatives of Western European Socia-
lism, Vandervelde, Rosenfeld and Liebknecht. The „second
group" was defended by about ten Communists, headed by
Bucharin, and including Graziadey, Sadul, Schmeral and Fe-
lix Cohn.

The defenders of the „second group" stated their posi-
tion in the following official declaration bearing their signa-
tures:

„Coun'sel for the defense, as a body, do not regard
themselves in agreement We have nothing in common
with Messrs. Vandervelde and Rosenfeld. We do not
regard it possible for us to defend the enemies of the pro-
letarian revolution, who belong to the camp of the Rus-
sian Vandee. But among the accused ihere is a group
who admit their participation in counter-revolutionaiy
work and who have come to the conviction that the po-
licy of the Central Committee of the Party of
Socialists-Revolutionists was a criminal one. These per-
sons have honestly joined the camp of the proletarian re-
volution. On this ground we consider it our revolutionary
duty to undertake their defense."

The charges were pressed by prosecutors Krylenko, Luna-
charsky, Pokrovsky, Clara Zetkin, Muna, Sadul and Bokani.

The tribunal consisted of three Bolsheviks. The „public"
or the „pedple" were represented by 1200 Communists and
Che-Ka agents. The families of the accused received only 22
cards of admission. The taking of stenographic reports and
all translation work were entirely in the hands of the Commu-
nist „ochranka".

In reality, the prosecution against the 22 Socialists-Revo-
lutionists was conducted by four sides:

1. by the pfficial prosecutors,

2. by the traitors (the socalled 2nd group)

3. by the counsel of these traitors,

4. by the court.

And all this took place in an atmosphere of incessant
newspaper villification, in the midst of an inflamed, infuriated,
carefully picked mob.

Counsel for the „first group" were freqeently forbidden
to speak, their remarks were often garbled by the translators
and their requests or suggestions invariably met with mocking
rejection by the court. '

The speeches of the accused, as evidenced even by the
tendencious reports of the Soviet press, were repeatedly inter-
rupted by the president, prosecutors and by Che-Ka agents in
the audience.

The tribunal declined to hear witnesses called by the de-
fense, refused to admit four Russian Socialists chosen as attor-
neys by the defendants, and rejected the admission of docu-
ments exposing the falsity and ridiculousness of the charges.

It is hardly necessary to say that the defendants of the
„first group" were denied the right of preliminary examina-
tion of the details of the charges, that the foreign counsel
were deprived of the right to confer freely with their Russian
colleagues and that the stenograohic records were so garbled '
that neither the accused nor their counsel coud recognize tiieir
own speeches.

The whole comedy of the trial was simply the prelude to
the bloody epilogue contemplated by the Bolsheviki.

At the very first session, Piatakoff, the presiding officer,
announced that the court does not intend to
handle the case from a dispassionate, objec-
tive point of view but would be guided
solely by the interests of the Soviet Go-
vernment.

This was no trial, as trials are Supposed to be conducted
in Western Europe. It was a dance of cannibals about their
prisoners, bound hand and foot.

When the defense attemped to support itself upon the
Berlin agreement, the Bolsheviki replied that this agreement
was in no way binding upon them and thaf their tribunal
would do what it pleased.

This meant; we refuse to observe our obligations, we
defy the opinion of the proletariat of Western Europe, ^nd we
will treat the accused as we have already treated thousands of
Socialists, peasants and workers.

After seven days^ of fierce struggle for fair play, for
observance of tlie Berlin agreement, the foreign members
of the defense filed with the court the following decla-
ration:

1. „The court has declined to admit four new attor-
neys for the defense and, contrary to the Berlin agree-
ment, it has forbidden us to take stenographic records,

2. „The court has declared that, und^ certain cir-
cumstances, it would even question the desirability of
permitting foreign counsel to continue their participation
in the trial.

3. „Prosecutors Krylenko and Lunacharsky have de-
clared tiiat the Berlin agreement was in no way binding
upon them.

4. „The representative of the delegation of the Third
Internationale at the Berlin conference, Bucharin, has de-
clared that the Berlin agreement is abrogated.

„We are guided entirely by the interests of the de-
fense and, therefore, despite the foregoing facts, are still
at the disposal of the ddendants, should they desire it."

The whole character of the trial had by this time become
so obvious that the continued participation of the European
attorneys had become quite useless. They could not obtain
from the court even a semblance of fair procedure, their pre-
sence in no way guaranteed the honest publicity the case de-
manded, and thanks to the deliberate garbling of stenographic
records and the degeneration of the trial into a street meetings
they were deprived of active participation in the discussions.
On the other hand, the continued presence of these European
attorneys at the trial tended to create the illusion that the
case was proceeding normally, in accordance with the con-
ditions set in the Berlin declaration of the three intematio-
nales. The lawyers felt, therefore, that the strengthening of
this illusion was more detrimental than beneficial to the task
they had undertaken in appearing before the. court. This
promted their decision to decline further participation in the
case — a decision approved unanimously by the defendants.

On June 19, Vandervelde, Liebknecht, Rosenfeld and Wa-
ters left Moscow (butonlyaftertheyhaddeclared
a 24 hour hunger strike to compell the Bol-

sheviki to grant them permission to leave
Russia).

On their return to Western Europe, they issued a decla-
ration adressed to the Socialist parties of all countries, in
which they detailed the circumstances which compelled theni
to abandon the case. The declaration follows:

„The purpose of the Berlin agreement was to give the
proletariat assurance that the Moscow trial of the Socialists-
Revolutionists would be conducted on the basis of all legal
guarantees of freedom of defense and from a purely objective
viewpoint.

„Trusting the promises given to the three internatio-
nales at the Berlin conference, we went to Moscow to
conduct the defense of the defenfants, accused of serious
crimes, and at the same time, by our presence at the trial,
to give the proletariat the assurance that these promises
were being kept, and thus to contribute, on our part, to
the removal of the obstacles barring the road toward a
united proletarian front. The manner in which the trial
is conducted has failed to satisfy our expectations. From
the very beginning, if became obvious that contrary to
the promises made by the Third Internationale in Berlin,
the accused were brought not before their judges but be-
fore their political foes, whose purpose it was to con-
vict them for reasons and considerations of state. Par-
ticularly significant was the declaration of the president,
immediately upon the opening of the trial, that this court
was a class court and that it would consciously meet out
class justice.

„The president of the Supreme Tribunal, Krylenko,
appeared before the presiding officer, who is actually
subordinate to him, in the role of prosecutor, contrary to
Krylenko's own recent ruling forbidding, for obvious
reasons, ,the appearance of a court president before his
own court in tiie capacity of prosecutor. In his own
place Krylenko appointed Piatakoff, his wife's brotiier-in-
law and suborduiate. Krylenko's wife herself conducted
the preliminary inquiry and signed the indictment. Be-
fore the opening of the trial, Krylenko personally offe-

red resolutions at public meetings demanding conviction
of the accused.

„0n our arrival in Moscow we were met with a de-
monstration apparently previously organized. The de-
monstrators carried signs and banners, with inscriptions
insulting to us. Threats and abuse were hurled upon us,
combined with demands that we be thrown into jail. The
government resorted to the utterly false assertion that
Sie attitude exhibited toward us in the demonstration re-
flected the attitude of all the workers of Moscow and,
with this as an excuse, the government put us up at a
place two hours distant by train from the city, and sur-
rounded us by several officials whose purpose it was to
spy upon us. For this reason we felt ourselves prisoners
in Moscow, which we were.

„Two witnesses were arrested on the eve of the
trial, while a search was made in the home of one of the
Russian counsel for the defense and part of the material
he had prepared for the defense confiscated.

„The court, which had at its disposal 1200 cards of
admission, failed to give the accused a sufficient number
of these for their immediate relatives. Almost all these
tickets were distributed, in the face of our protests, and
with the assistance of Communist political and trade
union organizations among members of their party and
agents of the Che-Ka. As a result of this the courtroom
was at times -disturbed by such noisy demonstrations
that, in the end, the president was obliged to interfere.

„On June 20, the anniversary of Volodarsky's death,
the Moscow organization of the Communist Party or-
ganized a big demonstration in front of the court-buil-
ding with the slogan demanding ,,rigorous punishment
for the accused". Within the building, adjoining the
courtroom itself, there was an exhibition of pamphlets
and pictures, the purpose of which was to reveal graphi-
cally, tiie alleged „crimes" of the Socialists-Revolutionists.
While those of the accused who denied emphatically any
participation in terroristic acts were kept in jail, the in-
formers Semionoff and Konopliowa, who confessed that
they had killed Volodarsky and carried out the assault

on Lenine, were left at liberty. During the intermissions
tiiey were to be seen conversing in the friendliest manner
with the Communist leaders, the close party comrades of
those whom they had killed or tried to murder. But at
the trial itself there were incidents which provoked the
determination of the accused, as well as our own, to
abandon the defense. On this point we refer you to our
declaration at the trial, in which we indicated in detail
the reasons which made it impossible for us, in full agre-
ment with the defendants, to participate any longer.in the
case. The Berlin agreement was not observed. This
destroyed the basis of our defense. Our continued pre-
sence would have only created the false impression that
the promises given in Berlin were being observed.

„In view of the violation of the Berlin agreement,
there now arises before you the most important of its
provisions, — that there shall be no death verdicts at the
trial of the Socialists-Revolutionists. For many weeks the
Communists have been conducting a campaign in the
press and from the platform, demanding not only that
death verdicts be rendered but also the execution of these
verdicts. The court declared that it is in no way
concerned witii the Berlin agreement. The representatives
of the Third Internationale- declared that the agree-
ment is abrogated and that all promises made by the
Third Internationale are no longer in force. If we had
not protested against these declarations, if we had per-
mitted these to pass without the sharpest protest and had
not appealed with all our strength to the conscience of
the international Socialist movement, we would have faced
the danger of finding ourselves before an accomplished
fact.

„This must not come to pass! A death verdict must
under no circumstances be permitted! The lives of the
accused must be preserved!

„The gulf that is dividmg the parties of the workers
has already shown itself wide enough in weakening our
fight against capitalism and reaction. This gulf must
not be widened. If it is to be filled with the blood of the

accused Socialists-Revolutionists it will never be bridged
at all.

„The interests of the entire vi^orking class, therefore,
now demand that you halt the hands of tiiose who are
thirsting for the blood of the accused.

„The slogan of all working class parties of all lands
and currents must be: „No death sentences for the accu-
sed Socialists-Revolutionistsi"

Thus was the trial of the Socialists-Revolutionists taken
from the seat of the Moscow court, prostituted and covered
with shame, before the court of the international proletariat.

Three days after the departure of the European Socia-
lists from Moscow, the Russian attorneys for the defense like-
wise declined to act any longer. Their action was prompted
by the scenes that took place inside and outside of the court
building on June 20. In the name of all counsel for the „first
group", Muravioff submitted to the court the following de-
claration concerning the events of that day:

,,On June 20, in the face of our protest and regard-
less of the prosecutor's refusal to make a formal state-
ment regarding the admission of the reading in the court-
room of resolutions adopted at the meeting of June 20,
the president admitted groups of demonstrators into the
court, who heaped insults both upon the defense and the
accused and read the resolution demanding the highest
measure of punishment for them, a resolution allegedly
adopted at tiie meeting in the name of all labor organi-
zations of Petrograd and Moscow. ^

„The appearance of the demonstrators in the court-
room and the presentation of their resolution to the court
constituted a violation of normal proceedings, determined
beforehand the courf s verdict, rendering it illegal, and
destroyed the character of the highest judicial organ of
the republic by the violation of the technical mode of
judicial procedure. For these reasons the defense is
compelled to request that the trial be discontinued, in
order tiiat it may be resumed before a new court and
another body of government prosecutors".
To this the court replied:

„The request of the defense for the discontinuance of the
trial and the self-liquidation of the tribunal cannot be con-
sidered, as the tribunal was fully conscious of the significance
of its action in admetting the workers' delegations to the pro-
ceedings".

The defense insisted upon its demand, supporting itself
upon the legal code of Soviet Russia, which regulates fully
the presence of outsiders in court proceedings, and which
clearly provides that whatever the grounds offered in an
appeal may be, „the verdict must positively be
a n n u 1 e d in all instance of admission into the case of per-
sons not involved by the juridical provisions of court pro-
ceedings", i. e. of all persons „outside of members of the
court, the accused, counsel and prosecutors, witnesses, ex-
perts, and in all cases of admission in the course of the court
proceedings of persons not provided for by juridical proce-
dure and who have had or may have had any influence upon
the nature of the verdict".

The text is quite clear. The appearance of delegations
at the trial and the exchange of speeches between them and
court, as was pointed out by the „Socialistichesky Viestnik",
constituted precisely a violation such as is guarded against by
the law and „which might have had an influence upon the
nature of the verdict". So that from apurely juridical point
of view tlie verdict of the Supreme Tribunal w a s 1 i a b 1 e
to positive annullment from the very beginning.

But the Bolsheviki attach no more importance to their
laws than they do to their promises and obligations. The
court simply laughed at the protest of counsel and their re-
ferences to the law, whereupon Muravioff, stirred with ire,
shouted:

,„Woe to the country, woe to the people who have no
respect for their law and who laugh at iliose who defend tihe
law".

In reply the judges ordered Muravioff 's indictaient

for contempt of court! .\

It was then that the attorneys for the defense,
following a conference with the accused, announced that
they could no longer take part in the proceedings, to

which the court replied with the following statement,
published in the entire Soviet press. This product of
the creative genius of Soviet judges follows:

„The request for its self-liquidation submitted by the
defense to the present court can be explained only by the
complete ignorance of Counsel Muravioff and his total
misconception of the court's juridical nature. The Su-
preme Tribunal was fully conscious of its act in admitting:
the workers' delegation into the courtroom and in its
own participation in the demonstration of June 20. The
action of the court was in no way accidental but was
taken in full consciousness and in complete understanding
of its nature.

The argiunent of counsel Muravioff that the court
can render its verdict only if it remains within a glass
case can be explained only by the blindness of bour-
geois thought. Judges are human beings and it is im-
possible to isolate tiiem from public life. The important
thing in this case is not what had actually occurred but
how the court reacted toward it. The court believes that
much that was said here on June 20 was not true, but
it is possible that some of it was true. It was important
for the court to establish only two facts, which were
evidenced by the workers' delegation: 1. that the working
masses support the Soviet Government and 2. that the
court is acting not in isolation from the working masses
but in- an atmosphere of confidence and support on the
part of tiiese masses. That is why the president of the
court declared that the declaration made by the demon-
strators was of value to us.

„So far as the complaint of the defense against the
insulfe hurled by the demonstrators against the accused
is concerned, the court declares that these workers did
not go through any law college and do not know the
laws of etiquette, and for this reason permitted them-
selves to use expressions which should not have been
used in the courtroom. Because of these considerations,
the court regards it as inadmissible to pick on' the rough
language that came from the workers' lips.

„Conceming the impartiality of the court, the tri-
bunal declared on the very first day that it laughs at the
hypocritical assertion of bourgeois countries that a court
must stand above classes and should render verdicts of
some sort of unearthly impartiality. Cousel Muravioff
may, therefore, succeed in discrediting the verdict of the
proletarian class court in any other country but not in
tiie state of the workers and peasants. The court there-
fore refuses to consider the declaration of the defense
and suggests that in case of its dissatisfaction v^ith the
court's actions to direct its complaints to the people's
commissary of justice or to the praesidium of the Central
Executive Committee. (These lofty institutions have al-
ready examined the declarations of the defense. Muravioff,
Tager and Zehdanoff have been ordered exiled to distant
parts of Russia).

This document requires no comment.

And so, the defense was compelled to withdraw from the
case. On June 23, the accused were left alone face to face with
their executioners. On the same day, Gendelman made the
following declaration to the court, in the name of all his com-
rades:

„From the very first day of the trial, the lawful demands
of our counsel have been invariably rejected by the court and
have provoked it to ironic comment. The court's behaviour
has compelled first our foreign counsel to withdraw from
trial. They have been subjected to slanderous persecution
everywhere and at all moments^ Not even this high institu-
tion, called the Supreme Revolutionary Tribunal, could pro-
tect them from insults and ridicule by the ,public* comman-
deered to attend the trial or on the part of the members of
the court and the prosecution Yesterday, the Russian mem-
bers of the defense were also compelled to abandon their task
because of the open violation of the revolutionary/ law by its
own guardians.

„Under these circumstances it would hardly be proper to
call this a court. Its members and the members of the pro-
secution appear at public meetings arranged by the Commu-
nist Party during intermissions, where they discuss the opi-

nions and impressions ihey have formed in the course of the
trial. And if we still remain here, instead of demanding our
return to jaif, we do so in order to prove to the authors of
this trial that we do not fear it.

„The participation of members of the court at the meeting
where a resolution was adopted demanding the highest mea-
sure of punishment for us, i. e. the death penalty, forces us
to conclude that our judges are in full solidarity with those
leaders and organizers of the government's demonstration
who terrorized the workers into approval of the resolution of
which the government was in such great need. It is known
to us that wholesale arrests in plants and factories preceeded
the demonstration and meeting on June 20".

The president interrupted at this point:

„The tribunal will neither deny nor affirm the fact of
its participation at the meeting, but requests proof of the ar-
rests of workmen and their compulsory attendance at the
demonstration".

Gendelman replied:

„Wholesale arrests took place at the Prochoroff, Nosoff,
Kiaboff and Ranenberg plants, in the railway repair shops and
others, the workers being informed also that their failure to
appear at the demonstration would be regarded as proof of
their solidarity with the Socialists-Revolutionists. Before de-
parting for the demonstration the workers at every plant and
factory were checked off by lists".

The president again interrupts Gendelman, who pointing
to leaflets in the hands of some of the public in the courtroom
declares:

„I have always avoided hearsay assertions. I ask the*
court to examine the declaration of the Moscow workers,
protesting against the misuse of their name in the resolution
of June 20".

The president asks Gendelman:

„Have you nothing else to add?"

Gendelman: — ,,It seems to me it would be difficult to
add anything to what has already been pointed out — and
thus' everything is clear".

Yes, everything was clear. The „trial" continued.

VII.

What they were accused of

Vandervelde summed up the political and juridical sub-
stance of the Moscow trial in the following words:

„The Bolsheviki brought four indictments against
the Socialists-Revolutionists:

„1. The Socialists-Revolutionists defended the Provi-
sional Government with arms in their hands.

„The Socialists-Revolutionists admit this fact and are
proud of it.

„2. The Socialists-Revolutionists, with arms in their
hands, defended the Constituent Assembly.

„The Socialists-Revolutionists admit this fact and are
only sorry that they did not succeed in carrying this to
a successful conclusion.

„3. The Socialists-Revolutionists waged an armed
struggle against the Soviet Government.

„The Socialists-Revolutionists admit this as an un-
deniable, historic fact. But all these three accusations
must be ruled out of court for the Soviet Government
had issued an amnesty covering all these actions and
even legalized the Socialist-Revolutionary Party.

„4. The Socialists-Revolutionists tock part in Volo-
darsky's assassination and in the assault on Lenine.

„There is not a shred of evidence nor a single wit-
ness to support this charge, — except the confessions of
the provocateurs Semionoff and Konopliowa, whom
nobody believes".

The first three accusations concern the participation of
the party of Socialists-Revolutionists in the civil war, covering
the period from the end of 1917 to the beginning of 1919.

This civil war was begun by the Bolsheviki who, in Oc-
tober, 1917, seized power by means of a conspiracy, dissolved
the Constituent Assembly and rejected all proposals of the
Socialist parties for a united Socialist front. The entire re-
sponsibility for the blood of peasants and workers shed in
this war falls, therefore, upon the Bolsheviki.

The memory of the Bolsheviki is not so short that they
have forgotten how Lenine, as early as in April, 1917, sum-
moned the workers to civil war.. This was his first word
on crossing the Russian frontier. The Bolsheviki remember
very well how their trucks filled with armed men moved up
and down the streets of Petrograd, in July of the same year,
with guns and banners proclaiminef: „Long live the Civil
War!" They remember the efforts made at that time by the
Socialists-Revolutionists and Mensheviki to save the unity of
the democracy, in order to avert fractricidal strife within its
midst. What right, therefore, have these gentlemen at this
time to accuse the Socialists-Revolutionists that in partici-
pating in the civil war they defended the Provisional Govern-
ment and the Constituent Assembly?

One may estimate as he please the policy of the Pro-
visional Government during the first period of the Russian
Revolution. One may or may not criticize its basic idea of
the coalition of Socialists with bourgeois-democratic ele-
ments. But there can be no doubt on one point: that the
party which delegated its members into the government not
only had a right but was duty bound to defend that govern-
ment against Sie attacks of conspirators and „putsch" heroes,
such as were the Bolsheviki, who had behind them bayonets
but not the majority of the people.

There may, likewise, be more than one opinion on the
principles of democracy and the Constituent Assembly, which
is tiie expression of these principles. But it is clear, that a
party standing on the platform of democracy, and which has
received by popular election a majority of votes, was duty
bound to use all means at its command in defense of the
Constituent Assembly against violent encroachments upon its
sovereign rights.

The civil war and the Volga front were nothing else
than a continuation of the defense of the Constituent Ass-
embly, the defense which the Bolsheviki had broken so easily
in January. And, again, there may be difference of opinion
on the policy of the Socialists-Revolutionists at that period;
one may condemn the line followed at that time by individual
members of the party delegated by the party into the govern-
ment that was directing the struggle on the Volga front and

in Siberia, the socalled ^Directorate^* (afterwards overthrown
by Kolchak conspirators) . But this is a question subject to
political or historic criticism but Which cannot be trans-
formed into the juridical question -of the legal responsibility
for this policy of a party defending, iii the course of civil
war, the idea of democracy against a party that initiated this
war in the name of the eskblishment and preservation of its
dictatorship. 1^ . : • .v!: i : "

From the juridical point of view this question lost all
actuality after the abandonment by. the Socialist-Revolutionist
Party of its armed struggle against the Soviet Government,
-r- a step approved fully by the party conference in February,
191Q, and followed by the amnesty granted by, the Bolshevist
Government to all members of the party who had participated
in the civil^war. ''^'- ' ■'' ■ ^ v

Shortly after this the party was legalized and was even
permitted to publish its organ in Moscow.

To be sure, this organ was suppressed after the tenth
issue and wholesale arrests of its members were resumed two
weeks after the legalization of the party. To be sure> the
party was again compelled to return to underground activity,
but for two and a half years it remained uncontesteai; that
the amnesty granted by the Soviet Govemnient excluded all
possibility of legal prosecution for acts covered by this am-
nesty act..

But now,, in 1922, the Bolshevist tribunal has revived
these old questions. The victors in the civil war, the usurpers
of power, are trying as rebels those people who four and a
half years ago sought to defend against violence the elected
representatives of the people. They are being tried in viola-
tion of soviet law itself, in violation of the Soviet Gov^nmerifs
own oath,^^ for an act amnesty is tantamount to a law and
a promise. . •, :;^ - ' ^ . ,• , ..-,, -

The Bolsheviki themselves apparently felt tiie: weakness of
the case, but the Soviet jurists found a way out of the situa-
tion by inserting into the indictment against the Socialists-Re-
volutionists /the following argument: :,r: -^-^

„The members of the Central Committee of
the Party of Socialists-Revolutionists directed, the par-

Un g:ro'Cip'e"U'a'C'cub'e5"avec leur d^fenseurs.
Die Angeklagten mit ihren Verteidigern.

En h a u t: 1.
4. M. Lvov. 5. A.
8. P. Zlobin. — En
4. A. Qotz.

M. V^d^niapine. 2. N. Artemiev.
Wauters (avocat), 6. E. Tlmofeev.
bas: 1. D. Donskoi. 2. E. Ratner.

3. N. Jdanov (avocat).

7. K. Rosenfeld (avocat).

3. Vandervelde (avocat).

En haut: 1. D. Rakov. 2. D. DonskoJ. 3. F. Fedorovitch.
5. N. Jdanov (avocat). 6. Th. Liebknecht (avocat). 7. S. Morosov
(traducteur). 9. E. Berz. 10. A. Tagher (avocat). II.
Au milieu: 1. L. Ouerstein. 2. M. Likhatch. 3. E
5. A. Ootz. 6. O. Qorkov. — En b a s: !. P. Zlobin. 2
4. B. Outgoff.

4. A. Licberov.

8. L. Rosenthal

C. Rosenfeld (avocat). —

Timofeev. 4. E. Ratner.

M. Lvoii. 3. W. Agapov.

(fo^tsetzune vom vorhercehenden Bildblatt —■ Voir au verso de la |paff« illustrte
prtcjidente) • ' ' "^k ■ •^■■.

\ Standing as prisoners before this Coart, we have done more for the sakt of
our party, we have accomplished niore towards reveallns the true nature of your
dictatonship in the eyes of working classes at home and abroad, th^n we could
possibly do if we enioyed liberty; through Death we shall eain niore for the
common cause, than if we remained alive.

V From the very moment we fell into your hands we expected nothing else but
a death warrant. We don't care whether you amnesty us or not.^ But from this
bench you will never hear a request for pardon. Qendelman

,; Jlflfi A^Jia HaiueJi napriu, a^h pa3o6jiaHeHiH Baiueii AHicraTypu Bi
rk&aax-b pyqcKaro n Me)KAyHapoAHaro pa6oHaro KJiacca, ajih Ai^a
couianHSMa u peBo;iK>uiH mu, imtHHue, sthmi npoifeccMi> CAtJiaJUf
66Jibiiie, HtMii ecjiM 6bi naxoAwiHCb Ha Bont; a MepTBbie CA'^aeu
(Sonbme, HtM-b Morau 6t. GfltaaTb «hbuc; . . . ..

Ci* toro MOMCHTa, Kai^b' Mbi nonaJiH b^ BauiM pyKU, hbi 6wm
ya-fepeHbi B-b tohi, mto bm naMi BbiHecete cMepTHbiii npHroBOpi».
^jig Hacb CeapasjiHMHo^ aHHHCTupyeTe nu bU Hacb fuih HtTi. Ho
ci» 3THXii CKaMeJi npocb6fai o noMHnoBaHJH bu ho ycnbiuiHTe. . . .

I . reHAenbMaHi*

' • ' " ,'■.-■■'.'

Pro v£c naii strany, pro odhaleni vaSi diktatury pfed o£iina ruski
a mezinirodni dilnicke tfidyi pro v£c socialismtt a reyoluce my,
zajatci, timto procesem jsme uddlali vice nei kdybychom byli na
svobodS; a smrti udelame vfce, neibychom mohli itdielati fsouce iivtr

Od okamiiku, kdy jsm^ padii do vaiich rukou, byli jsme pf esvdd-
iefki, ie n&s odsoudite k smrti. Je nam Ihosiejno, zdali nas budite
amnestovatt nebo ne. Z Uchio lavic proiby o milosti neuslyiite, . .

. Qendelman

ty's counter-revolutionary activity, in preparation for the
overthrow of the 'Soviet Government, both before the
amnesty of 1919 as well as after the said almnesty, which
.thus, in accordance with the idea of the amnesty, renders
it inapplicable to them." «*

A fair estimate of the. authors of this argument was givert
by Martoff in the „So2ialistichesky Viestnik": '

„The Jesuit Fathers are indeed pupps and youngsters
in ■ comparison with the Communist casuists. We can
readily imagine the explosion of protest that would sweep
the Third Internationale if some , bourgeois government
attempted to interpret an amnesty granted by it to Commu-
nists in the sense that it was to be applied only to those
of them, who on their release would not resume their for-
mer struggle against the bourgeoisie! Not even the Czar
rist government, in granting us amnesty in October, 1905,
dared to send us back to jail in punishment for old
„crimes" because we have committed new ones".

The defendants in the Moscow trial themselves. did not,
however, resort to this pointed and powerful argument. In
accordance with the political character of the trial, as they re-
garded it, they did not care to employ formal, juridical argu-
ments in repulsing the attacks upon them but.preferred, in-
stead, to base their defense upon devotion to their revolutio-
nary duty.

Thus Gotz, in reply to the president's question as to
whether he had anything to add to the bill of indictment, said:

„As member of the Central Comittee of the party which
sent its members into the Government, duty bound to support
that government and being always well-informed of the go-
vernment's moves, I take upon myself entire responsibility for
our armed resistance in October, 1917. There was no other
way open for the Central Committee, especially because our
political opponents had at that period of the struggle between
us raised the ^slogan ,peace at any price'.

„After the October coup d'etat, we considered it our
bounden duty to our country to wage armed resistance against
the usurpers of power, who signed the Brest-Litovsk peace
and were ready to accept other compromises leading to the

5 65

enslavement of the Russian people, who had just thrown off
the fetters of Czarist rule".

This stand of the defendants rendered the prosecution's
efforts to „expose" the struggle of the Socialists-Revolutionists
against the Soviet Government both pittiful and useless. For
this reason, the Kremlin prosecution transferred its attention
from the general question of the civil war to the particular
question of the relations between the Socialists-Revolutionists
with foreign missions during the civil war.

The reply to this accusation was given by Timofeyeff in
his discussion of the bill of indictment:

„The accusation brought against us regarding our rela-
tions with foreign powers and our receipt of military and fi-
nancial assistance from them in 1917 should be addressed to the
Provisional Government, recognized by all the people of
Russia, and into' which members of our party entered. This
government stood for the peservation of our treaty obligatibi^s
and other understandings with the Allies, and the members
our party, forming part of that government, regarded it as
their highest obligation to preserve the honor of the Russian
people and the life interests of Russia. They regarded Russia's
continued participation in the war as essential, and in basing
their program upon Socialist ideas of peace they hoped to
wrest at the future peace conference conditions of peace
acceptable to Russia. The Brest-Litovsk treaty, concluded in
1918, made continued cooperation with the Allies for salva-
tion of our country from German imperialism, supported by
the Soviet government, doubly essential. Our relations with
the Allies continued up to the German revolution."

The testimony of witnesses brought before the court
corroborated this declaration of the accused in every way.

The only support left to the prosecution on this point
were the oral assertions of the traitors and turncoats. These
could not, however, state a single fact and simply referred to
each other as the source of their information.

No less than thirty sessions were devoted by the court in its
efforts to prove the Socialists-Revolutionists guilty of terro-
ristic acts against the Soviet government. The concrete cases
discussed were Volodarsky's assassination, June 20, 1918, and
the attack on Lenine.

Regarding: the first of these terroristic acts it was fully
established that the murder was committed by the worker Ser-
geyeff, of the Semionovsky detachment, and that the Central
Executive Committee of the party not only did not sanction
the act but condemned it in the sharpest possible terms.

The attack on Lenine was committed without the know-
ledge of the party, by the emotional Dora Kaplan, formerly an
anarchist, who joined the Party of Socialists-Revolutionists
almost on the eve of her act, driven to desperation by tiie
spectacle of Bolshevist savagery and dreaming of liberating
the Russian people from the yoke of dictatorship by her self-
sacrifice. The Bolshevist's reply to the shot fired by Dora
Kaplan was wholesale murder of hostages. Thousands of
perfectly innocent people were murdered and savagely tor-
tured to death.

But this mountain of corpses did not satisfy the Bolshevist
leaders and four years later they raised the question of the
responsibility of the Party of Socialists-Revolutionists for the
fatal shot fired by Dora Kaplan.

They could not, of course, show the party's direct con-
nection with this act. Instead, they resorted to insinuations:
the party had r a i s e d the question of terrorism, it s y m p a -
t h i z e d with terroristic acte, it was inclined to launch a
terroristic campaign.

At the very beginning of the trial Gotz declared:

„I deny emphatically the accusations brought against me,
as member of the Central Committee, with regard to our sanc-
tion of individual acts of terrorism committed against the
leaders- of our political foes by individual members of our
party. I deny the accusation as utterly baseless, unsupported
by cbncrete data and founded entirely upon the statements of
former members of our party on their admission to the Com-
munist Party. Such terroristic acts were in sharp contradic-
tion witii the policy of the Central Committee."

On the point of the Party's discussion of the question of
terroristic action, Timofeyeff made the following statement:

,,The question of terrorism was first raised in the Central
Committee in the middle of January, 1918, but was taken off
the agenda by an absolute majority. This was repeated a se-
cond time. The question was raised for the second time in

January, and for the third time in June, in Moscow, but was
decided in the negative by the same absolute majority."

But why was this question repeatedly raised before the
party? Because there were among its membership some unba-
lanced and emotional characters who proved good instru-
ments for the machinations of provocateurs. ;

The testimony of witnesses proved conclusively that Se-
i,^ mionoff and Konopliowa were behind these terroristic plans
■S^and that these provocateurs, with the aid of the recruits they
had enlisted and deceived without the knowledge of the party's
centre, committed those acts the responsibility for which the
Bolsheviki sought to place upon the Party of Socialists-Revo-
lutionists. This proved the decisive blow to the chief point of
the indictment.

The Bolsheviki then raised another accusation against the
defendants. They undertock to try them for the actions of the
socalled „Nonpartisan Union" in Paris.

The Bolsheviki based this new accusation upon docu-
V ments stolen by monarchists from the archives of the socalled
,,Administrative Centre" of that organization. When Prosecu-
tor Krylenko raised before the court the question of admitting
this material to the proceedings, Gotz speaking in the name of
all the defendants declared:

„We, the accused, members of the Central Committee,
have repeatedly declared to the court that we assume full
responsibility for the acts of all groups of our party insofar
as these acts tock place in Russia. We likewise assume all
responsibility for the actions of our foreign delegation at the
present time. With regard to the new documents submitted
against us, documents of dubious origin, allegedly illumina-
ting the activity of alleged groups alleged to have acted abroad
in the name of our party and who, in the opinion of the state
prosecutor, were closely connected with our work, we declare
,>^ that we cannot and will not accept responsibility for actions
^ unknown to us, committed by persons likewise unknown to
. us. We, therefore, request that these documents be stricken
from the record, as material having no direct connection with
the indictment against us."

The court declined this request. The documents were
admitted into the case and the tribunal, deserting the question

of what Gotz, Timofeyeff and the other defendants did in
Russia, took up the question of what certain third persons
did in Paris at the time when the defendants were kept in jail.

Gotz then addressed another declaration to the court:

„The first group of defendants has delegated me to inform
the court that we decline to participate in the discussion of the
new documents and to request the court's permission to excuse
us from attending the proceedings during the reading and dis-
cussion of thes^ documents."

This request of the defendants was granted. They were
permitted to leave the room and the judges proceeded to exa-
mine the Paris documents without them.

What are these documents? What was the ^Nonpartisan
Union"? What did the Moscow prisoners of the Soviet Go-
vernment have to do with it? .

These questions are answered in the declaration of the
foreign delegation of the Party of Socialists-Revolutionists,
June 14, 1922:

„With the assistance of monarchists, the Bolsheviki
have stolen some documents from the Paris archive of the
Administrative Centre of the Nonpartisan Union. Seve-
ral days after the theft, Krylenko presented part of these
documents to the revolutionary tribunal, with the request
that they be admitted into the case of the Central Com-
mittee of the Party of Socialists-Revolutionists. The
Bolshevist court, regardless of the protests of tlie defen-
dants, granted the request ^

The foreign delegation of the Party of Socialists-Re-
volutionists declares: fe
„1. Not a single member of the Party of Socialists-
Revolutionists now on trial in Moscow belonged to the
Non-Partisan Union.

„2. During the entire period of the union's activity
(1920 — 21) the defendants were in prison.

„3. The union's activity was confined entirely abroad
and as indicated a year ago in the Administrative Centre's
declaration in the „Volia Rossii", consisted in helping to
bring about the union of all forceg of the revolutionary
democracy, in the establishment and support of press or-

gans the purpose of which was to fighi intervention and
oppose both red and white dictatorship, and to keep Eu-
ropean public opinion informed along the line of these
aims.

„4. Individual members of the Party of Socialists-
Revolutionists residing abroad were members of this
union and cooperated in such publications as „Volia
Rossii" and „Pour la Russie**, established or supported
by tiie union, and which, while not party organs, did
not in any way differ with the genera! political senti-
ments of the party.

, „5. The Administrative Centre of this nonpartisafi
organization was in no way connected with any of the
party's centres and acted entirely outside the control of
the party, which cannot, therefore, assume any political
responsibility for its actions.

„6. The effort to „incriminate" the Party of Socia-
lists-Revolutionists in the organization of uprisings, on
the basis pf correspondence stolen from the Nonpartisan
Union, an organization operating abroad, (to say nothing
of the criminal method used in obtaining these docu-
ments for the prosecution or the stupidity of the attempt
to establish a connection between an organization of that
type and local uprisings in Russia) simply manifests the
helplessness of the Bolshevist prosecutors in trying to
find sufficient material to support their preconceived
verdict.

„The Party of Socialists-Revolutionists does not in-
tend to shirk historic and political responsibility for the
entire struggle it waged and still wages against bolshe-
vist and white guard dictatorship, not excluding the pe-
rio4 when it resorted to arms in defense of democracy.
But it hurls back with contempt the cheap effort to put
upon it the responsibility for actions in which it neitiier
took nor takes any part."

I am not going to enter here into analysis of the docu-
ments stolen from the Paris archive. I will not attempt to dis-
cuss the activity of the „Nonpartisan Union". I am not spea-
king here of the merits of this or that doctrine, of tiiis of that
policy, but of the Twelve Who Are To Die! For can there be

Wore than one opinion about a court that rendered a death
verdict against them for the actions of an organization of
which they were not members, of which they toiew only by
hearsay and upon which they could exercise no influence
whatever!

But in order to appreciate fully this phase of the Moscow
trial, it must be remembered that the persons who were being
tried had long before the trial declared opeidy and emphati-'
cally their opposition to the tendencies of the Paris „Nonpar-
tisan Union" and its auxiliary, the Conference of Members of
the Constituent Assembly. I have in mind the „Letter to Com-
rades Abroad", which appeared in Nos. 14—15 of „Revolu-
zionnaya Rossia" (November-December 1921), and signed by
Timofeyeff, Gendelman, Gotz, Donskoy, B. Ivanoff, Lichatch,
Rakoff, Eugenia Ratner and the others.
The letter follows:

„What should be the chief aim of the representatives
of the party abroad? They should aim to make the
struggle conducted by our party, as a Socialist and revo-
lutionary party, in Russia, coincide wih the struggle
waged by the international working class. They should
aim, on one side, to familiarize European Socialist opinion
with the experience of the Russian Socialist parties, with
"their mistakes, their defeats, their victories, and, on the
other, to internationalize our struggle against the dicta-
torship of the Bolshevist party, to rivet the attention of
the working classes of all countries upon this struggle,
to assist the efforts of our organizations fighting under
.indescribably difficult conditions by attracting the mo-
ral and intellectual sympathy of the international working
class. The comrades abroad must devote all their atten-
tion to this task, for they must remember at all times that
our party is but one of the detachments of the internatio-
nal working class. And from this point of view we re-
ject most emphatically the „imperialist" policy with
which some of the comrades abroad are infatuated. No
matter how broad the perspectives of the party may
appear in the future or how luring the vistas arising in
the imagination of some of the individual leaders, — we
must never forget our present, alas^ so modest. There

must be no place for illusions and selt — deceptions, ror
what confronts us today, on one side, is a battered, mer-
cilessly persecuted party, driven underground, and, on
the other, the shattered, weary bleeding masses of the
people. This is the reality of things. Under such condi-
tions it would be a grave mistake to distract the party,
from the only right task before it of organizing, training
and disciplining the masses, as part of the process of the
political struggle against the dictatorship of the Soviet
Government — a task in which all the active elements of
the party in Russia are engaged.

„In this struggle the Russian Socialist parties, the
parties of the Russian toiling masses, have but one ally in
Europe and America, — the international working class.
And it is in this direction that our comrades abroad
should devote all their efforts. All short cuts leading in
the direction of European governments, and of socalled
„influencial" circles, being made by individual coinrades,
supporting themselves either on the authority arising out
of tiieir activity in the past, or on the hopes that may be
laid by some Western European circles and governments
upon the Socialist-Revolutionary Party in the future, will
not only fail to ease the burden of the struggle against
the Bolshevist dictatorship, placed by history upon the
shoulders of our party, but on the contrary, will make
the situation worse confounded, lead us off on a tan-
gent, set the European Socialist parties and the broad
masses of the people against us and thus make more
difficult the sufficiently hard struggle against the Bolshe-'
vist rule. The isolation of Bolshevism from the interna-
tional Socialist mpvement should be the first and funda-
mental aim of the party's representatives abroad. jThe
policy of some of you, however, can lead only to the
isolation of the party from the international labor move-
ment. If the Party of Socialists-Revolutionists is destined
again, in response to the will of the people, to take the
lead in the Russian Revolution, it will, when that time
comes, be in a position, by means of its governmental
authority, to establish such ' relations with the govern-
ments of Western Europe as will correspond to the in-

terests of the state and the people. But to anticipate co-
ming events is useless so far as the future is concerned
and highly injurious for the present, for it detracts the
comrades, we repeat, from the only task before us —
the establishment of close concrete and intellectual rela-
tions between the Party of Socialists-Revolutionists and
the international working class.

„This substitution of fictitious attemps to „influence"
European governments for regular, revolutionary party
work abroad must also be emphasized as highly detrimen-
tal with regard to another question which troubles the
minds of the comrades in Russia: the question of the
socalled Paris Conference, The party indicated quite
clearly its attitude on this question at its Xth congress
and condemned unequivocally this entire enterprise as the
baseless venture of a group of individuals acting on their
own initiative, delegated by no one to do so, representing
and supporting themselves upon" nobody. The fact
alone that on this question the party unanimously dis-
owed so many of its former tried leaders and did not hesi-
tate disavow their acts and policy before the Socialist
public opinion of Europe should have sufficed to make
the authors of this unfortunate enterprise realize the ex-
tent to which their venture contradicted the whole policy
of the party and damaged the interests of the revolution.
It is not the fear of demagogic criticism by the Bolshe-
vist press — as some of you were inclined to believe — but
deep consciousness of the grave danger^this venture held
out to the party as a whole, in the policy which it is now
working out, which forms the sole motive actuating all
members of the Party of Socialists-Revolutionists now at
work in Russia, as well as its leading representative bodies,
in their unanimous and emphatic demand that the comra-
des abroad abandon the Parisian venture. If on one scale
we put the mythical political advantages arising out
of coalition or cooperation with Miliukoff, who, accord-
ing to your own declaration, is but a „pittiful fragment of
tiie Kadet Party", representing nobody, and on the other
we put the real dangers confronting the unity of the
party in the continued, obstinate pursuit of the policy

followed by some comrades abroad, it should not be
difficult for any one who holds dear the party's interests
to choose the proper course. So it seems to us.

„The foregoing reasoning must make clear to re-
presentatives of the party abroad that we must pursue
but one policy with regard to the attitude of the Western
European and American governments — unceasing
struggle againsf all kinds of intervention, open or camou-
flaged.

„The reality of the situation and the demands arising
therefrom should be our sole guide in determining our
tactics and policy. And if you would listen more care-
fully to the advice of the comrades working in Russia
you would readily agree that an understanding with the
Mensheviki, with an eye to coordinating the political
struggle and establishing a united democratic-socialist
front, is the only real problem before us, rather than
coalition with „fragments of a party" representing most
unreal quantities at the present moment in Russia. The
united action of the delegations of both parties abroad
before the court of the international proletariat would
constitute a wiser and more desirable policy in defense
of the Russian Revolution abroad, regardless of the many
differences that exist between our party and the Menshe-
viki. Such closer cooperation with tiie foreign delega-
tion of the Mensheviki becomes all the more possible in
propertion as the Mensheviki, acting under the influence
of the stubborn facts of Russian reality and Bolshevist
practice, abandon their Utopian conception of the Socia-
list nature of the Russian Revolution in its pre-
sent Bolshevist stage and their dreams of
the possibility of peaceful evolution of the Kremlin dic-
tatorship into a workers' and peasants' government.

„Such, in our opinion, are the problems confront-
ing the party's representatives abroad. We consider it
our duty to state our opinion as sharply and as empha-,
tically as possible, in order to leave no room for ambi- '
guity and misunderstanding. The Party of Socialists-
Revolutionists never suffered from the disease of dogma-
tism and sectional irreconciliability. But never before

was the party so much in need of solidarity of action and
unity of organization as it is now. The defeat of the
Bolshevist dictatorship, which is the main task placed
before us by the development of the Russian Revolution
and put forward as our chief problem by the Xth con-
gress of the party, demands the concenti-ated attention of
all forces of the party. It demands patience and metho-
dical effort, liquidation of all sidfr-shows and the cessa-
tion of interrenine strife within the party. This is the
unanimous demand of all comrades from the front tren-
4, ches. You dare not ignore it".

It is the authors of this letter whom the Bolsheviki dare
to accuse of intriguing with the Entente, of intervention plots
and of supporting the blockade of Russia! It is these people-
whom the Bolsheviki sentenced to death for the very same
acts which the defendants so unequivocally condemned as
inexecusable from the point of view of international Socialism.

Let us, however, be fair to the Bolsheviki. Let us not
represent the Moscow judges as more stupid and naive than
they really are. Not for their participation in the civil war,
covered by the amnesty act, not for the terroristic acts and
robberies carried out by Semionoff and Konopliowa, and not
for the acts covered in the documents stolen in Paris did the
Moscow judges condemn the Socialists-Revolutionists. No!
They condemned them to death because while kept prisoners
in the dock, the Socialists-Revolutionists turned the tables and
indicted the whole system of Soviet absolutism before the
proletariat of the world.

The declarations of the accused already cited are perhaps
sufficient to give the reader an insight into their souls, but I
would like to reveal them more clearjy. And could this be
done any better than by citing their letters, their words, their
speeches.

Here is what the accused wrote to their foreign counsel
on the day after the aforementioned demonstration at the
Windau railway station:

„Dear Comrades:

„With heavy hearts we learned that the campaign
of slander and misrepresentation i*aised against you by

the entire Bolshevist press has produced the inevitable
result: the wild scenes which took place on your arrival
in Moscow. Having greeted at one time the arrival in
„red Moscow" of the representatives of German imperia-
lism, Mirbach and Helfferich, as marking the „victory of
the revolution",^ the Bolsheviki today see in the arrival
of the representatives of international Socialism an insult
to the Russian working class. The Russian working
class is as little responsible for these disgusting excesses
as it is for the policy of terrorism and violence pursued
by the Bolshevist government, covering itself with the
name of the workers and peasants.

„The artificial staging of the spectacle of ,popular
wrath^ with the aid of paid agents of the Che-Ka and
Communist cells, is so obvious, that it will hardly deceive
even those who are but little familiar with the tactics and
methods of the Bolshevist government.

„Such incidents, which will hardly prove humiliating
to- you, old and tried leaders of the international prole-
tariat, can only bring indelible shame upon its organizers
— the Central Committee of the Russian Communist
Party — and prove again before the face of the inter-
national Socialist movement that the Bolsheviki do not
hesitate to use any means, however dishonest, in their
struggle against their, opponents. The spectacle of ,po-
pular wrath* staged by agents of the Che-Ka no more
represents the real attitude of the Russian toiling masses
than do the gala parades in honour of the Third Inter-
nationale bear witness to the devotion of the Russian
proletariat and peasantry to the ideas of Bolshevist com-
munism. We have grown familiar with this kind of
,popular* movements under the Czarist regime, when the
Czarist police staged as successfully as does the Bolshevist
' Che-Ka its impressive spectacles intended to emphasize
the people's loyalty and their hatred against Socialists.
We, Russian Socialists, have long grown accustomed to
all this.

,But the Bolshevist excesses incident to your arrival
have been accompanied by something which compells
even us, well familiar with the practices of the Bolshevist

governitient, to raise a word of warning. To the usual
methods of the Communist Party — slander, falsehood
and insinuation — there has now been added incitement
of the street mob to lynching. For how else can you
interpret the resolutions now being adopted by Commu-
nist ,cells* in the name of the workers of individual plants
and factories, — resolutions • demanding the murder of
the members of the Party of Socialists-Revolutionists
about to be tried and their counsel, the representatives
of the Second and Vienna Internationales? How else can
you interpret the bloodthirsty ditties specially prepared
by Soviet poets for your arrival? We have no assurance
that these scenes will not be reenacted on a larger scale
with the opening of the trial. We, the prison^s of the
Soviet Government, have long grown reconciled to the
possibility of beiiig lynched by the Che-Ka. But we do
not feel justified in subjecting you, the leaders of the
international proletariat, to similar danger. And if the
' government will not abandon immediately its persecu-
tion against you, which threatnes to take the form of a
lynching party, and will not cease the staging of street
scenes of alleged ,popular wrath* we would rather be
deprived of your defense in the coming trial than subject
^e international proletariat in the present bitter cam-
paign of international capital against Socialism to the
danger of losing some of its foremost chieftains.

, „(Signed). A. Gotz, M. Gendelman, S. Markoff,

E. Ratner, M. Vedepianin, P. Zlobin, L. Gerstein,
B. Utgoff, D. Donskoy, E! Gorkoff, Dobroluboff,

F. Fedorovitch, E. Timofeyeff, D. Rakoff, N. Ivanoff,
E. Ivanova, A. Liberoff, M. Lichatch, N. Artemieff,
B. Agapoff, A. Altovsky, B. Ivanoff, inmates of the
Lefortoff Prison and members of the Central Com-
mittee of the Party of S. R."

Their conduct at the trial was marked by the same nobi-
ity of spirit which animates this noble, courageous letter
Their appearance in „court" was like the entrance of a group
)f uncompromising accusers rather than a group of defen-
iants. Like a thunderous wave roll out the first words of
jendelman's declaration:" ^

„We do not recognize your court, we do not recognize
it not only because of your crying violations of your own
laws but principally because what we are about to witness
here will be a political struggle between the Party of Socia-
lists-Revolutionists and the Bolshevist Party, the judges in
which will consist not of a neutral or nonpartisan body, or
of members of other parties, freely chosen by the people, but
of members of the very same Bolshevist Party, appointed by
its Central Committee, and who have come here with a verdict
prepared in advance by the Central Committee of Russian
Bolshevist Party". ^v^^

„Your bill of indictment bristles not only with inaccura-
cies, which you yourselves admit, but with downright for-
geries", i$ the acfcusation hurled by Gendelman into the face
of the court.

„Why did Clara Zetkin come here for, — did she come
here to get the heads of the accused?" asks Tiraofeyeff.

„What becomes of your promises of a free trial and free
defense given at the Berlin conference of the intemationales,
when you prevent the appearance of eleven of our witnesses
bv keeping them under arrest?" is the q^iestion of the accused.

And Lichatch hurls the following at the Court:

„We have come here only because you had promised be-
fore the face of the international proletariat, in Berlin, as well
as in your press, that the trial would be free, public and open
to everybody. But your perverted sense of honor, your black
conscience enabled you to fill this hall with Communists mad
with thirst for blood".

„You refuse to call our witnesses because you fear them",
declares Timofeyeff, „but we invite your wihiesses, we are
waiting for them".

Proud contempt for death permeates Gendehnan's decla-
ration before the court:

„From the moment we fell into your hands we were con-
vinced that you would condemn us to death. But from these
bencheg you will never hear any plea for mercy!" 4 v

Waters, writing in the Brussels „Peuple", thus describee
the accused in the Moscow trial:

„They are sitting behind us. They are triumphant!
Their actions are being discussed publicly! They proudl}
accept full responsibility for all they have done.

,,The first to speak is Gendehnan. He begins with
a sharp attack:

,„We do not recognize your court. It has been orde
red to convict us. It derives its authority from a govern-
ment akin to the government of the 18th Brumaire, which
was composed of convicted criminals, bums, allegec
students, prostitutes and journalists for sale".

„Timofeyeff follows:

„We have not come here to save our heads — the>
belong to the Revolution, ^t will never surrender oui
right to revolution, for this right is the holy heritage oi
the French Revolution and the unwritten law of ever>
Socialist party".

„Here is Lichatch, complete master of himself, wait-
ing calmly for the mob to cease yelling. Here is Gotz,
this leader of clear mind, greeted with insults by the mob
Here is Berg, a plain workman, who in reply to the
question: „are you guilty?" says: „yes, I am guilty be-
fore the revolution of not fighting hard enough to des-
troy your rotten dictatorship".

„They should all be quoted, for they are all of the
same <:ourage and manhood.

„ Wednesday, June 14th. The accused have requested
us to withdraw from the defense. It is a painful moment.
We are parting from them. We embrace them all, these
twenty-two heads, over which there hovers a grave threat.
The strains of the „Internationale" are heard, melancholy,
heart-rending. We leave quite shattered".

All despots like to chop off heads that will not bend.
Under Nicholas Romanoff these people pined in Siberian
dungeons. Under Lenine, they are sentenced to death.

; VIII.

The Verdict

After the examination of witnesses, the prosecutors took
the floor. The only one of them who tried to draw the line
between his function and that of a Che-Ka agent was Sadul.
He attacked the Party of Socialists-Revolutionists but did not
demand ihe h^ads of the accused. The others, from Luna-
charsky to Glara Zetkin, while not offering to execute the ac-
cused themselves, evinced their eagerness to prepare the rope.
The most bloodthirsty speech was Krilenkp's.

The accused were then given the floor. Timofeyeff con-
cluded his speech as follows:

„There is no common ground between us. We remain
what we were". .^ ,./:•',,.,;;

And Gotz, confirming tljis, declared: ^ '' - ; :f'p| L
„We were and will always remain Socialists"/ /d^'.^^^^
With his usual calm, he added: r^^ :'^''''''"^''^'^-

„r have, not been able all these years to give my party an
account 6! my stewardship. Let my remarks from this plat-
form, therefore, serve as a testament to those, who remain. If
we must die we will meet death without fear, but if we remain
among the living we will, after our release, contiritie' to wage
our fight 'a.v^ainst you as we have done in the past". j -

The prosecutor was again given the floor. Discussing
the verdict he said that it was clearly determined by the de-
claration of Gotz, Genddman and Timofeyeff, who declared
that as long as they remained alive tiiey would do what they
had done before and that it was ueseless to expect from them
either a change of tactics or plea for mercy.„What is there
left for us to do after'such declarations?" gisked the prosecu-
tor. „What do we see when we look into the past? Rebellion
and blood in Petrograd. The October uprising in Moscow
and blood. In Archangel — blood. In Samara and in Si-
beria -p blood. In Tamboff and recently in Kronstadt -^
blood. TheMore, 1 saiy quite calmly: blood must flow here
in order that it may riot flow again, or at least not in such
measure." r 1 , ;,-

aa..— ^g.

£aBU

Q. Qorkov - T. FopbKOB

M A-V6d6niapine
M.A.Beji,eHanHH

A. Liberov - A. JlM6epoB

FF.Fedorovitch
4>.<t>.0enopoBM4

E. Berg - E. Bepr

S. T- Rakov - JI. *i>. PaKOB

Thus spoke the hangmen of Versailles in their wholesale
executions of the Communards, Thus spoke Horthy and De-
nikin.

But we have learned already that the Bolsheviki are not
satisfied with mere murder. They seek also the „moral anni-
hilation" of their opponents. With this purpose in mind, the
prosecution's demand for the execution of the accused was
followed by a proposal that the accused repent and di-
savow t h e i r party. They were offered their lives and
their freedom and they rejected the proposal with contempt.

Timofeyeff replied:

„The State Prosecutors Lunacharsky and Krilenko who
pressed the indictment against us on all counts, not being sure
themselves of our guilt, have deemed it necessary, in order to
lighten their task, to request us to repent and disavow our
past activity. I have been delegated by the defendants of the
first group to make the following declaration in reply to this
proposal before the court and prosecution: There can
be no question of repentance or disavowal.
From these benches you will never hear
anything like that. As we have stood before
so will we continue to standinthefuture,
and in this regard we will always remain, so
far as you are concerned, unrepentant op-
ponents."

Unsatisfied with this declaration, the court in withdra-
wing for discussion of the verdict, again addressed the defen-
dants of the first group, asking them to state what their atti-
tude toward the Soviet Government would be if they should
be acquitted and given their liberty.

Timofeyeff replied:

„We stick to the unalterable position expressed by every
one of us individually during the interrogation at the precee-
ding sessions".
/ On August 7, the court rendered its verdict:

A) Twelwe of the defendants to be executed: Gotz,
Donskoy, Gerstein, . Gendelman, Lichatch, Nikolai Ivanoff,
Eugenia Ratner, Timofeyeff, Morozoff, Agapoff, Helen Iva-
nova, Altovsky.

B) Imprisonement from 2 to 10 years: Zobin, Utgoff,
Berg, Lvoff, Liberoff, Artemieff, Rakoff, Fedorovitch, Vede-
pianin.

C) For the traitors — Acquital.

This verdict was submitted in this form for the exami-
nation of the conference of the Bolshevist Party, then in
session at Moscow. Here the members of the Soviet Govern-
ment (with the exception of Trotzky), part of the praesidium
of the Central Executive Committee, members of the confe-
rence from the, provinces, and heads of Soviet bureaus and
embassies abroad, urged the verdict to be commuted to perma-
nent exile of the condemned outside the confines of the
RSFSR. The group composed of Trotzky, Stalin and Bu-
charin, opposing this suggestion, proposed that the condem-
ned be given 24 hours to sign an undertaking promising to
abandon forever all resistance to the Soviet Government, re-
sign from their party and cease all relations with any of its mem-
bers. In event of their assent to this proposal the sentences of
the condemned to death were to be commuted to five years,
exile at hard labor to Northenn provinces, while those sen-
tenced to imprisonement were to be sent to concentration
camps for one year. In event of refusal, the verdict was to be
executed at once.

After stormy discussion the conference accepted a com-
promise proposed by Kameneff: the verdict is to be made
conditional and is not to be executed if the Party of Socia-
lists-Revolutionists abandons all active opposition to the So-
viet Government, in Russia and abroad.

The verdict was confirmed in this form and made pu-
blic by the AU-Russian Central Executive Committee. Its final
form shows how little the Bolsheviki are inclined to let their
prey out of their hands:

„With regard to those twelve of the defendants sen-
tenced to the extreme measure of punishment, the Cen-
tral Executive Committee decides: the verdict is confitr
med but its execution is postponed.

„The verdict will not be executed if the Party of
Socialists-Revolutionists actually abandons all under-
ground, conspiratory, terroristic, and rebel activity, as

well as all military espionage against the Soviet Govern-
ment.

„If, however, the Party of Socialists-Revolutionists
will continue in the future to wage armed war against
the Soviet Government, it will inevitably bring about the
execution of all the condemned inspirers and organizers
of counter-revolutionary terrorism and rebellion."

The Bolsheviki thus qualify their verdict by the applica-
tion of the principle of CONDITIONAL SENTENCE.
Is this ignorance or hypocrisy?

IF THE PARTY WILL DISCONTINUE ALL UNDER-
GROUND CONSPIRATORY ACTIVITY.

But who will decide whether the work of the Party of
Socialists-Revolutionists is of an underground, conspiratory
nature? The Che-Ka? But who will arbitrate the difference
that may arise in the Che-Ka on the nature and character of the
work of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party? Will the Che-Ka
turn to Semionoff, Konopliowa and other traitors in such
cases? And is it not clear that every action of a party, depri-
ved of the right of free political activity must of necessity be
of underground, conspiratory nature?

IF THE PARTY ABANDONS ALL TERRORISTIC AC-
TIVITY AGAINST THE SOVIET GOVERNMENT.

Buth both the accused and the representative bodies of the
Party of Socialists-Revolutionists have repeatedly declared
that the party never resorted to terrorism in its struggle
against the Soviet Government. Yet, the leaders of this party
are sentenced to death on the testimony of adventurists and
provocateurs who succeeded to penetrate into its ranks. What
is there to prevent the Che-Ka from bringing out another
Judas upon the stage, who will in obedience to his masters'
orders, testify that some Socialists-Revolutionists had sought to
persuade him to blow up the whole of Moscow?

IF THE PARTY WILL ABANDON MILITARY
ESPIONAGE.

What has the Party of Socialists-Revolutionists done that
comes under the category of military espionage? The Mos-
cow judges can give no reply to this question. We recall,
however, the charge brought by the Bolsheviki against the

fi« 83

French Communist La Fohe to the effect that Jie was perfor-
ming espionage work for Poland. We recall also, in this con-
nection, the execution of the Russian scientist Uchtomsky on
the charge that he was guilty of ESPIONAGE in sending in-
formation abroad on the condition of Russian museums. What
is there to prevent the Bolsheviki in bringing a charge of espio-
nage against any Socialist-Revolutionist newspaper published
in Russia or abroad and interpreting Russian affairs in a
style contrary to that of the „Pravda" or „Izvestia"?

UPRISINGS?

But we know well that the Bolheviki never hesitate to
make the Socialists-Revolutionists and Mensheviki responsible
for any uprisings led by counter-revolutionary generals, for
all local rebellions and for the operations of bandit groups.
The Bolsheviki can thus take advantage of the very first mili-
tary uprising or the very first bread riot or disturbance of
workmen and peasants, of the very first indication of a new
movement of Wrangel, Petlura and Savinkoff and say:

„And so the Socialists-Revolutionists have not ceased
their rebel conspiracies, — to the wall, then, with Gotz, Timo-
feyeff, Gendelman, Donskoy and their comrades f" '

In short, the ACTUAL MEANING of the verdict is that
the Twelve Who Are To Die may be executed at any moment.

As the Moscow „Pravda" (No. 178) wrote:

„Let there be one attempt to bum a factory or one

attempt at murder — and the Socialists-Revolutionists will be

punished according to law."

„Punished according to law" means they will be killed.
And that this may come to pass it is not necessary that tiie
incendiaries or murderers should be members of the Party
of Socialists-Revolutionists. The fact of the fire or the mur-
der is to be regarded sufficient cause for the execution of the
condemned.

As I write about them now I see Gotz before me, this
brave revolutionist, who knows fear no more than he knows
ambition. I see his fine, kind, smiling, intelligent face. I recall
his quiet, simple, intellegent conversation, permeated at all
times with deep conviction, and I do not know whether the
Moscow executioners will not finish him in a few days.

I recall Timofeyeff, his proud head, white as snow at 30,
his eyes gleaming with fire, thought and will power, his
quick movements. I see him as he was in Siberia, in the days
of the reaction, and I do not know how long the death sen-
tence is to hang over his head.

We, Russian Revolutionists, are accustomed to look death
in the face. We remember the death houses of Czarism.
Nothing can ever erase from our minds the memory of the
scenes Siat were enacted in those cells of death! But not even
in the worst times of the black terror under Czarism was a
verdict possible even remotely resembling the verdict of the
Bolshevist court in Moscow.

The „Golos Rossii" (No. 102) well described it as „worse
and more shameless than naked murder." It combines a
thirst for blood and contemptible political blackmail with the
most subtle kind of torture.

What does the conditional character of the verdict
mean? The All-Russian Executive Committee reserves
the right to execute the verdict whenever it feels like it.
The condemned are subjected to the constant torture of
expectation of death. They arelifelonghostages.
They are responsible with their heads in case of every
new slander against the Party of Socialists-Revolutionists,
for' every new action of those members of the party who
are at liberty.

The Bolsheviki are not satisfied with mere execu-
tions. They trade in and speculate with the blood of
their victims. By holding out the threat of executing
Gotz, Timofeyeff, Donskoy and the others they mean to
bind, to paralyze the activities of the entire party of Socia-
lists-Revolutionists.

The Bolsheviki hope to deceive the aroused workers
of all countries who protested against the death verdict:
they do not intend to execute the condemned immediately
but the condemned may be executed at any moment.
When the protests cease, when the attention of Socialist
Europe is distracted, then will it be possible to execute
the condemned, — singly or in a body, quietly, unobser-
ved, somewhere in the labyrinth of Che-Ka dungeons or
in some out of the way jail Such is the plan of the

Bolsheviki. Did human imagination ever conceive any-
thing more contemptible or martyrdom more painful?
Our comrades are not only condemned to death but to
daily execution. This execution began at the moment
when the verdict was pronounced.

The confirmation of the verdict by the Central Exe-
cutive Committee of Soviets was officFally announced to
the condemned on August 10, at 10 o'clock in the mor-
ning, by the assistant cofnmandant of the Lubianka pri-
son, who said:

„I have been ordered to inform you that the Central
Executive Committee has confirmed the verdict of the
Supreme Tribunal. Get ready. Please inform me if any
of you should desire to convey anything to your rela-
tives."

The condemned prepared letters and waited until
8 o'clock in the evening for their transfer to the death house.
At 8 o'clock in the evening the commandant himself, accom-
panied by Che-Ka agents and representatives of the prison
administration, appeared and again announced the decison of
the Central Executive Committee in its final form. The com-
mandant then informed the condemned that henceforward they
will be deprived of all privileges enjoyed by prisoners, inclu-
ding the daily walk and the weekly visit of relatives, and or-
dered that the condemned be immediately searched. The or-
der was carried out to the accompaniment of insults and
laughter by the agents of the Che-Ka and representatives of
the prison administration.

Thus were the condemned officially transferred from
their former position of prison inmates to the position of pri-
soners sentenced to death. To be sure, the Central Executive
Committee recalled this action and ordered that the condem-
ned be treated as long-term prisoners. But several days later
they were transferred to the terrible „sekretki" of what is
known as the „inner prison" of the Che-Ka! This cat-and-
mouse game was intended to add to the torture of the pri-
soners.

This inhuman game was accompanied by punitive mea-
sures against the relatives of the condemned. Thus, immedia-
tely after the pronouncement of the verdict by the court, and

even before its confirmation, the wives of Lichatch, Gerstein,
Liberoff and the others were arrested and taken out of Mos-
cow. Their destination was kept secret.

And this was the verdict, these were the measures that
Received the praise of the Executive Committee of the Third
Internationale in its last declaration addressed to the workers
of all countries. In THIS verdict the leaders of the Third
Internationale profess to see proof that „the revolutionary
government of the workers does not know any policy of ven-
geance and is guided by considerations of revolutionary ne-
cessity".

It was the moment of the pronouncement of T H I S ver-
dict that the Executive Comittee of the Third Internationale
chose to call upon the workers of all parties to compell the
leaders of the Second and Vienna Internationales to cease
„their shameless assaults upon the Soviet Government". The
Third Internationale urged the workers of the world to
address the following demand to the leaders of the Second and
Vienna Internationales:

„You must compell your allies, the Socialists-Revolutio-
nists, to abandon their civil war against the Soviet Govern-
ment, to abandon not in word but in deed their shameful coo-
peration with capitalist governments, to abandon their prepa-
ration of civil war in Soviet Russia, which seeks only to labor
in peace. The Soviet Government, which is devoid of the
bloodthirstiness of bourgeois governments, has halted the
sword of punishment. It is tiie duty of the workers to sup-
port the generous action of the Soviet Government, to prevent
the renewal of civil war and to help Soviet Russia in its
struggle against the avaricious plans of world capitalism".

If there are in the Third Internationale any decent, sin-
cere people, who have fallen by mistake into that house of in-
tellectual prostitution, lured thither not by the jingle of Mos-
cow gold but by the phantom rays of demagogy, v^hich they
mistook for the fire of revolutionary idealism, people who
hold dear the noblest aspirations of the proletariat and who
hate the barbarism of the old world; and if they are not so
completely deceived by the Bolsheviki as to have retained
some measure of ability to reason and to account to themselves
for their own actions, — they will die of shame when they

realize how low and contemptible a deed they comitted when
they put their signature to tiie foregoing declaration, at ihe
time when twelve men condemned to die were returning to
their prison cells, with heads proud and erect, and followed by
the eyes of their near ones, their wives and their mothers,
who under Czarism first learned the torture of waiting for
the execution of those they loved.

iX.
THE MOSCOW TRIAL AND EUROPE.

At the very first news of the prepiaration of the trial of
the Socialists-Revolutionists, the suspicion arose that what
was being prepared in Moscow was not a trial but a spec-
tacle of bloody vengeance. This impression gained m
strength with the approach of the opening of the trial and in
proportion as the Bolshevist press and the press subsidized by
the Bolsheviki grew louder and louder in their demands for
the blood of the accused.

And when the curtain rose upon the scene of the trial,
with the accused prisoners on one side and their judges and
executioners, on the other, the resentment hitherto suppressed
broke forth into a wave of mighty protest that swept the
whole of Europe. v

Then followed the criminal violation of the vow given
by the Bolsheviki in the Berlin agreement, the withdrawal of
the foreign counsel, the „demonstration" of June 20, the re-
tirement of the Russian counsel, the long series of judicial for-
geries and the mockery of every principle of judicial fair play.

And, finally, came the verdict, followed by the cam-
paign of political slander and calumny raised by the Third
Internationale against the condemned.

The conscience of the cultured world in general and of
the proletariat, in particular, refused to reconcile itself to this
crying abuse, just as 20 years before it would not be recon-
ciled to the conviction of Dreyfus in France, or to the con-
viction of Beilis, in Czarist Russia, 10 years later.

Both of these cases come to one's mind thinking of the
Moscow trial. But there is, however, a great diference bet-

88 •

ween these now historical cases and the Moscow trial. The
Dreyfus case was founded upon lies. But however low the
court which sent an innocent man to Devil's Island proved
itself to be, it still retained some resemblance of a court com-
pared with the Moscow tribunal.

The Beilis case in its nature approaches closer to the
Moscow trial. It was staged shortly before the war, at the
very height of darkest reaction in Russia. The Russian Go-
vernment was bending all its energies to rousing the ignorant
masses against the Jews. To accomplish this purpose, and
with the assistance of false witnesses, it staged the trial in-
tended to prove to the whole world that the Jews were using
the blood of Christians for ritual purposes. The trial was
woven around the murder of the boy Justchinsky, found dead
in the environs of Kieff. It was proven at the trial that he
was killed by a band of thieves, headed by Vera Tcheberiak.
This band succeeded, however, in purchasing the govern-
ment's mercy and forgiveness by throwing the guilt upon the
Jews. Vera Tcheberiak thus played in the Beilis case the
part of Konopliowa at the Moscow trial. The Beilis case
had also its Semionoff, whose part was taken by the renegade
clergyman Pranaitis, who undertook to prove by Hebrew
Scripture that the Jews were given to seizing Christian youths
in order to murder them and use their blood for ritual pur-
poses.

The judges knew very well the real characters of Tche-
beriak and Pranaitis, but pretended to believe them. The
reactionary press sang the praises and unselfishness of these
witnesses.

Simultaneously with the trial proceeded the staging of
manifestations of „popular wrath". Branches of the Union
of the Russian People (who played the same role under Ni-
cholas II now performed by the Communist „cells") were
adopting resolutions demanding merciless punishment for the
accused. Street demonstrations were held, demanding the
execution of the murderers of Christian babes. There were
threats of lynching of Jews and Jewish progroms should the
judges evince restraint and mercy in the handling of the case.

The government, supporting this entire campaign and
directing it behind the scenes, pretended that it was merely

giving ear to the voice of public opinion. At the same time
it suppressed nev^spapers w^ho dared to tell the truth.

Finally, the court rendered its verdict. It was to the
effect that the charge concerning the murder of Justchinsky
had been fully proven, but the judges ofCzarist
Russia, v^rhich had its own Semionoffs and Konopliowas,
hesitated to descend to the level of Piatakoff, Bucharin, and
Krilenko, and acquitted Beilis and his fellow defendants.

The Moscow trial was a repetition of the Beilis case,
with the substitution for the ritual murder charge of the charge
that the accused Socialists were guilty of terroristic murders
and espionage. To this was added the tragic finale of the
verdict.

It is not remarkable, therefore, that public opinion,
deeply moved by the Beilis case, rose ^ in redoubled protest
against the Moscow trial of the Socialists-Revolutionists.

The resolutions, telegrams and other manifestations of
protest adopted or sent to Moscow would fill scores and
hundreds of pages. This movement of protest was led by
Socialist parties throughout the world. The Second and
Vienna Internationales were the first to rouse the world to
energetic protest m an effort to save the victims from the
clutches of the Moscow hangmen. To their voices were ad-
ded those of the French Socialist Party, the German Social-
Democratic Party, the Independent Socialist Party of Ger-
many, the British Labour Party, the Independent Labour
Party of Great Britain, the British Social-Democratic Federa-
tion, the Belgian Socialist Labour Party, the Socialist and
Social-Democratic Parties of Tchecho-Slovakia, the Socialist
parties of Italy, the Social-Democratic parties of Sweden and
Holland, the Socialist parties of Bulgaria, Poland, Latvia,
Lithuania, White-Russia, Ukraine, the Bund, the Party of
Socialists-Zionists and the united Socialist parties of India.

Among others who added their voices to the protests
against the Moscow comedy were the trade union organiza-
tions of the entire world, headed by the Amsterdam Inter-
nationale. Protests came from the French General Confede-
ration of Labour, the German Trade Union Congress, the
National Committee of the Trade Unions of Belgium and the
Italian Confederation of Labor. To these were added the

protests of the leading individual trade union organizations
of Europe. Workers' massmeetings and demonstrations
throughout the world likewise protested against the Moscow
judicial murder.

Particularly widespread was the protest movement in
France. In that country, where the overwhelming majority
of the workers cherish the great traditions of the great Re-
volution, the proletariat took up the defense of the Russian
Socialists-Revolutionists with the eagerness and enthusiasm
tiiat marked its fight for the triumph of the truth in the Drey-
fus case, under leadership of Jaures, 20 years ago.

Let Trotzky console his followers with assurances that
it was the Western-European bourgeoisie that rose to the
defense of the Socialists-Revolutionists, as its allies in the
struggle against the Soviet Government. Mr. Trotzky cannot
(stiffle tiie cry of unanimous resentmenjt coming from the
hearts of millions of workers by resorting to such petty and'
ill-conceived falsehood.

To the protest of the proletariat against the Moscow
trial were added those of the foremost representatives of
science, literature and art. Among those who signed the
declaration to tlie Soviet Government demanding that it
„abandon, in the name of humanity and universal reconcilia-
tion, what otherwise will be regarded by mankind as an act
of vengeance" were: A. Aulard, professor at the Sorbpnne;
Paul Painleve, member of the Institute; A. Meillet, professor
at the College de France and correspondent of the Petrograd
Academy of Sciences; Gabriel Seailles, professor at the Sor-
bonne; Emile Borel, of the Academy of Sciences; R. Schnei-
der, professor at the Sorbonne; M. Alleman, former member
of the chamber of Deputies; Xavier Leon; Henri Ozere, pro-
fessor at the Sorbonne; Charles Gide; Emil Terquam; J.
Adamar, member of the Institute; L. Levy-Bruhl, professor
at the Sorbonne; P. Alphanderi; Henry Levy-Bruhl; J. Bruns-
vig; Victor Bash, professor at the Sorbonne; Ch. Segnobos,
professor at the Sorbonne; and many others. This protest
was signed also by H. G. Wells.

The following were among those who protested in
Germany: Professor A. Einstein; Count Harry Kessler; Ernst
Feder, editor-in-chief of the Berliner Tageblatt; Dr. Fort-

man, editor-in-chief of the Centrist „Parlamentskorrespon-
denz"; P. Gerstenberg, member of the Reichstag and editor
of the „Volkszeitung"; Dr. Rudolph Breitscheid, member of
the Reichstag; Rd, Paul Nathan; Prof. Hugo Preuss; Fried-
rich Stampfer, editor of „Vorwarts"; Dr. B. Gutman, editor
of the „Frankfurter Zeitung"; Gabriel Reiter; Eduard Bern-
stein; Bemhard Kellermann; Felix Liebermann; Prof. Alois
Kil; Hermann Sudermann; Heinrich Stroebel; J. Sassenbach;
Karl Kautsky and others.

But the most eloquent proof of how deeply the Moscow
trial roused the conscience of the world were the protests of
a whole group of public men known to Europe as enthusi-
astic supporters and defenders of the Soviet Government.

First among these was Maxim Gorky, who on this oc-
casion found words worthy of his great talent and his great
heart. He was the first among the defenders of the Soviet
Government to warn it that by its action it would provoke
the moral blockadeof Soviet Russia by the Socia-
lists of the entire world.

Among those who joined Gorky in his protest were
Anatole France, Henri Barbusse and Romain Rolland, —
three great names with which French Communism has been
trying all these years to cover its pittiful intellectual poverty.

From Italy came the protest of the old anarchist leader
Malatesta. To the protests from that couniry was added
that of the Turin congress of trade unions, where the friends
of the Moscow dictators were expected to be in the majority.

In England, Turner and George Landbury were among
Bolshevist sympathisers who condemned the action of the
Soviet Government.

It is impossible to enumerate the names of all those who
in those days expressed the resentment of the aroused con-
science of the world. The wave of protest grew from day
to day, warning the Soviet Government that there were limits
which even absolutist rulers were forbidden to cross.

The political significance of this wave of protests is by
no means confined to its effects upon the outcome of the
Moscow trial. Its significance is much greater, for it facili-
tated the emancipation of the proletariat of Europe from
those remnants of illusion anent Russian Bolshevism which

it still entertained and helped the proletariat to comprehend
the real substance of Bolshevism.

Thus, a year and a half ago, the treachercus invasion of
democratic Georgia by Bolshevist armies and the enslave-
ment of this small, liberty-loving country by „red" bayonets,
opened the eyes of the workers of Europe to the real nature
of the Third Internationale and revealed that imperialist, cza-
rist ambitions were the basis of the intrigues conducted by
the Kremlin absolutists with the assistance of the reactionary
forces of the East. This killed the legend of the international,
pacifist mission of Bolshevism and of Moscow's protection
of oppressed peoples. But one legend still remained: the
legend that the terror raging in Soviet Russia was pursued
in self-defense by the „workers and peasants* government"
against the plots of counter-revolutionists. The Moscow
trial revealed to Europe the real victims against whom the
Bolshevist terror is directed.

The conquest of Georgia exposed the IMPERIALIST
NATURE OF BOLSHEVIST FOREIGN POLICY. The
trial of the Socialists-Revolutionists exposed the reality of
THE TERRORISM OF BOLSHEVIST INTERNAL POLICY.

Twelve revolutionists, who gave their whole lives to
the emancipation of the toiling masses of. Russia and to the
cause of international Socialism, were simply reaffirming
their devotion to that cause when from the prisoners' dock
they continued to expose the dictators of Russia. They utili-
zed their position before their Moscow judges to hurl a bur-
ning indictment against those who for the sake of their own
power hold tiie workers and peasants of their country in sla-
very. They fought with boundless courage to scatter forever
the last illusions that may still be entertained by the proleta-
riat of the world. They did not think for a moment about sa-
ving their own lives.

But the fight for their lives goes on. Behind the con-
demned is the conscience of mankind, the public opinion of
the world-proletariat. Against them is the Che-Ka. Who will

win?

It is hardly necessary to speak of what the outcome of
this struggle means? The victory of the Che-Ka and its
acceptance by mankind would not only imply the death of

these twelve brave fighters in the cause of Socialism and
prove the signal for a renewal, on a larger scale than ever be-
fore, of the terror in Russia and the countries conquerred by
the Bolsheviki, but would also fan the dying fires of the sava-
gery that has been sweeping the world in recent years. The
victory of human conscience in this fight, on the other hand,
would mark a great step forward to its triumph on a still
broader, universal scale.

The MORAL BLOCKADE of the jailers and executio-
ners of Russia — this must be the weapon of the world-prole^
tariat in this fight. The Soviet Government will not dare to
scorn such action. With this weapon in hand, the proletariat
of the world, pursuing the road of fraternal, Socialist inter-
vention, will win the battle for the lives of The Twelve Who
Are To Die and put and end to the fed terror in Russia.

, ;, W. Wo i tin sky.

Tactical positions
of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party as shown

by the party rekords

p. Zlobin - n. 3no6MH

S- Morosov - C. B. MopoaoB

LQucrstein • JI-HXepiuTCHH

M. A. Likhatch - M. A. Jlnxan

■

IprjtjsEra^BKfflHi^-^

^^t'*^^

^^^HyB

BSRSBVt-

.,«„i»iM

W. Agapov - B. AraiiOB

A. Altovsky - A.H.AjibTOBCKifi

Le verdict que vous vous pt^parez 1 pronocjer on, plutdt, Que
le Comity Central de votre parti a d^j^ pronohc^, je 1 'attends avec
la plus grande indifference, s inon a vec mlpris. Morpsov

Dem Urteil. das zu fallen Ihr im Begriffe seid. oder das vielmehr
das Zentralkomitee Eurer Partei bereits gefSllt hat, sehe ich mit
grdBter Gleichgiiltigkeit, urn nicht zu sagen Verachtung, entgegen. . . .

-^— Morosow

I am completely indifferent as to the sentence, which you are
about to pass, which has allready actually been voted by the Central
Committee of your party. I despise it. Morozoff

Kt> npHroBopy, kotopmm bu coOwpaerecb buhcctm, Btpaifee,
KOTOpuM y^ice BuneceH-b I^eHTpaJibHbiMi> KoMUTeTOM-b Baiueu napriH,
H OTHomycb cb BejiMHaftuiHMi. -paBHOj^mieMi*, MTo6bi He cKasaTb
npe3p-i^HieMi> „__^ ^!^po30B'I>

Na rozsudek kteryse chystate vyn^sti, Upe IFeSeao, kterf byl ji2
vynesen Ostfednim Komitet^m vaSi strany, pohltiim s naprostou
Ihostejnosti, abych nefekl s pobrdinim. . . Morozov

Vous avez obli^ cette vlrit^: on peut tuer les hommes, mais
ies idees ne peuvent pas etre atteintes par des baionnettes et des
balles. En nous fusillant, vous n'exterminerez pas notre parti.

— Querstein

Ilir habt die Wahrheit vergessen, daB man die Menschen wohl
toten kann, daB aber die Idee sich nicht auf Bajonette und Kugeln
eirifangen laBt. Indem Ihr uns erschieBt. werdet Ihr unsere Parte!
nicht vernichten. . . — ^^ — Gerstein

You forget this: that you can kill men, but you are powerless
to annihilate ideas by the means of bullets and bayonets. Through
murdering us you cannot destroy our party. Gerstein

Bbi 3a6biJi(i MCTMHy, hto Jiioaeiw yOnTb motkho, Hq m^ch he mTUKH
M nyjiH He yjiasjiHBaioTca. PaacTp'kirHB'b Hacb — bli ne yHHHTOJkHTe
Hameft napTiH. . . ^^ ^ FepiuTeHH-b^

Zapomfi^li jsie t^f^avdy 2e zabfti Ifdi. ale ideje bodaky a kul-
kami ie odpraviti nelze. Tim, 2e nas postf elite, nezni£it)e naSi
«t'any ' V Gerstein

Et meme sMl arrivait un miracle et Ies portes de vos Bastilles
s*ouvraient pour nous — nous ne serious pas pour cela libres,
puisque vous avez transform^ la Russie entidre en un immense
prison. Altovsiky

Sollte sogar ein Wunder geSchehen und die Turen euerer Bastille
sich auf tun — wir wiirden dennoch nicht in Frelheit sein, denn Ihr -
habt ganz RuBIand in einen ungeheuren Kerker verwandelt. ...

r ^-" Altowski

Even should a miracle happen, should the gates of your Bastilles
open — nevertheless there would be no freedom for us, as you have
turned Russia into one gigantic gaol. Altovsky

H ecflH 6bi aaace cjiyHHJiocb nyao h HBepn BamnxT. 6acTiwiii
paCKpbuiHCb — Mbi Bce jkc ne OKasajiHCb 6bi na cboCoa'I^, h6o zck> \
Pdcciio bu npespaTHJiH B-b orpoMHyio KaropxcHyio Tiopbuy. . . .

AjI&TOBCKiu

A i kdyby se stal zdzr&k a dvefe nisk^ch Bastil se otevFelymV
plFes to neocitli bychom se na tvobodS, mebot ceU Rusko uiinili
iste ohromiifm ialafem. . . * Allovskv

Although fonnally the Socialist-Revolutionary Party was^
founded only in 1901, and its first conference did not take'
place till the 1905 Revolution (Dec. 29, 1905 — Jan. 4, 1906),
it is in substance the oldest Russian Socialist party. .,.-.[

In. 1901, various Socialist^Revolutionary gi'oups in Russia
and among the political emigrants abroad came to an agreit-
merit and formed a united party. But these groups had me-,
rely teen continuing the tradition of the revolutionary Popu-
lists of 1876 — 1879 and of the socialist-revolutionary party
known as „the People's Will", which had been broken up
by the Governmenf s repressions during the years 1881— 85.

The most prominent workers of this Party had beea exe-
cuted or condemned to life imprisonment in the Schliisselburg
Forbress; others had been sent to penal servitude in Siberia;
the remainder had hidden beyond the frontier. . ^

It was only some ten years after this defeat that Socialist-;
Revbluiionary groups began to spring up again in Russia.
They gradually spread/ in parallel development with the revi-
val of the labour and political moyemieint in Russia at the turn
of the century.

An active part was taken in the rebirth of the Socialist-'
Revolutionary Party by members of both old parties, who had
returned from exile or were still living abroad. When the
S. R. P. was eventually formed, they, pccupied in it leading
places, si3e by side with new and younger workers. Atroad-
were the old Populists, Felix Volkovskoi, Shishko and Egor^
Lazareff, and members of the old ,iPeo}ple's Will* E. Riiit)anOr'
vitch and K. Tarassoff (N. RussanoH) and, from the more youthful
generation of that time Michael Gotz, andrVietor Tchernoffvin^

Russia were ^Grandmother" Catherine Breshkovskaya; who had
escaped from Siberia and was carrying on an exceedingly ener-
getic propaganda among the peasants, workmen and educated
youth, Gregory Gershuni, Stephan Sletoff, and others.

In the interval between the defeat of the People's Will
Party and the appearance of its spirtual and political succes-
sor, the S. R. P., there were formed in Russia Marxist Social-
Democratic groups, which also, towards the end of the nine-
ties, coalesced and formed the Russian Social-Democratic
Workmen's Party. In 1903, this Party split into Bolsheviks
and Mensheviks. ^: % .

The Social-Democrats differed from the Socialist-Revolu-
tionaries in concentrating their attention exclusively on the
urban artizans, and chiefly on the industrial proletariat.

They regarded the petty labouring peasantry as a class
approximating to the bourgeoisie in its social position and
interests, and for long, therefore, put forward no agrarian
programme, carried on no propaganda in the country districts
(except in the case of agricultural labourers), and considered
the agrarian programme which the Socialist-Revolutionaries
submitted to the peasants „reactionary", since it would retard
the development of capitalism in agriculture. The Socialist-
Revolutionaries, however — continuing in this question the
policy of the socialists of 1878 — 85 — took the view that the
interests of the great mass of the labouring peasantry with
little land, who were exploited by the estate-owners, the capi-
talists and the State, could be reconciled with the interests of
the urban artizans. They saw in the peasantry the funda-
mental revolutionary force, without which it was impossible
to overthrow the autocratic government. But at the same
time the Socialist-Revolutionaries always endeavoured to
unite the labouring peasantry and the industrial proletariat in
one world of labour, since they believed that the realisation
of socialist ideas was in the interest of the entire working
population of Russia. A union of the peasantry, the proleta-
riat and the working „intelligentsia" always formed the basis
of Socialist-Revolutionary doctrine.

The S. R. P. put forward an agrarian programme deman-
ding the socialization of alliand.

This programme quickly; gained the Party; great popula-
rity among the masses of the peasants. -a;^

During the 1905 Revolution, the S. R. P. carrifed on a
successful agitation in the villages. At the time of the elec-
tions to the first State Dum.a (1906), numerous village asso-
ciations adopted, resolutions in the spirit of the party's
programme, and in this sense sent instructions to the
elected at Petersburg. The S. R. P. did not put up
candidates for these elections (it boycotted the elections,
holding that the electoral law was too undemocratic and
the State Duma itself too imperfect an institution),
but there were a large number of Peasant-Labout de-
puties, who adopted the fundamental points of the agrarian
programme of the S. R. P., and in all political questions acted
in harmony with this Party, which kept up a close connection
with, their fraction.

In the elections for the second State Duma (1907),. the
S. R. P. put up its own cadidates. Some dozens of S. R. de-
puties were elected, and the agrarian bill of the Party was sig'
ned by 106 deputies.

The S. R. P. did not put up its own candidates for the
third and fourth Dumas. Kerensky, who had been a Socia-
list-Revolutionary, was elected to the fourth Duma (1908) as
a Peasant-Labour deputy, and was the Chairman of this
fraction.

Axi agrarian bill was worked out afresh by the Party in
1917, and was introduced into the Constituent Assembly,,
which, however, sat only one day — January 5, 1918 — and
was then dispersed by the Bolsheviks. This bill was drawn
up by the ministry of agriculture, headed by Victor Tchernoff,
in agreement with the Soviet of Peasants' Deputies, which>
met in: 1917, at the time of the Provisional Government, and
was presided over by a member of the Party, Avksentieff . An
overwhelming majority of the Soviet of Peasants' Deputies
supported the S. R. P. In the Constituent Assembly, the S.
R. P. had an absolute majority.

We consider it advisable to adduce the text of the fundar
mental clauses of the Agrarian Bill proposed by the S. R. P.
to the Constituent Assembly. (In the first sitting of the Con-;

,. 99

stitucnt Assembly there were 244 S. R. deputies and 153 Bols-
hevflcs and socalled „left" Socialist-Revolutionaries who had
broken away from the Party.

„(1) The right of property in land within the frontiers of
the Russian Republic is abolished now and for ever.

„(2) All lands within the frontiers of the Russian Repu-
blic, together with their mineral deposits, forests and waters,
are the property of the nation.

„(3) The disposal of all lands, with their mineral depo-
sits, forests and waters, belongs to the Republic, as personi-
fied by its central organs and lie organs of local self-govern-
ment, according to principles laid down by this law.

„(4) Areas of the Russian Republic enjoying rights of
state autonomy will realise their agrarian rights on tlie basis
of this law and in harmony with the federal constitution.

„(5) The tasks of the state authority in the disposal of
the land', its mineral deposits, forests and waters are: a) the
creation of conditions favouring the best possible utilisation
of the natural wealth of the country and the highest develop-
ment of productivity; b) fair distribution of all natural
blessings among the population.

„(6) The rights of persons and institutions to land, mine^
ral deposits, forests and waters can only be in the form of
usufruct.

„(7) The rights of usufruct of lands, mineral deposits,
forests and waters may be held by all citizens of the Russian
Republic, without regard to race or creed, and by their asso-
ciations, but also- by state and public bodies.

„(8) Rights of agrarian usufruct are acquired, realised
and cancelled according to the principles laid down by tiiis
fundamental law.

yj(9) Agrarian rights now belonging to individuals, cor-
porations and institutions are cancelled in so far as tiiey are
not in harmony with this law.

,,(10) The expropriation as national property of lands,
mineral deposits, forests and waters at present held by indivi-
duals, corporations and institutions as private property or
under any other legal claim takes place without compen-
sation."

100

In consequence of the enormous popularity of this law,
the Bolsheviks, with demagogic aims, borrowed some of its
provisions, but they did not dare either to adjust it to the
actual needs and conditions of agriculture or to put it into
force. That would have demanded a vast work by statisti-
cians and surveyors, with the support of the population and
the participation of all the necessary professional skill. All
these conditions were destroyed by the Bolshevist dicta-
torship, and were replaed by the anarchical appeal to the vil-
lages: „Take the land yourselves ~ where, how, and as
much as you wish!"

Lenin and other Bolsheviks subsequently admitted that
they did not believe in the possibility of settling the agrarian
problem in Russia by the law which they passed in the Coun-
cil of Soviets; that the demonstrative adoption of this law
was dictated to them exclusively by tactical considerations;
that they wished to demonstrate before the Russian peasantry
tiiat the Bolsheviks were defending the peasant's interests;
that by this means they sought to strengthen their authority
among the masses of the peasants.

In so far as the programmatic demands of the S. R. P. on
the labour question are concerned, the Socialists-Revolutio-
naries differ little from any other European socialist party.
Their ultimate aim was the socialization of the means oi pro-
duction; their immediate aims, tiie introduction of the eight-
hour-dav, control of production, and so on.

Besides its agrarian programme, another special characte-
ristic of the S. R. P. was its sharply-revolutionary, aggressive
and terroristic struggle against tiie autocracy.

The Socialist-Revolutionary groups which came into
existence in the years 1895—99 considered themselves diffe-
rentiated from the then existing Social-Democratic groups in
this, that the latter gave first place to the defence of the e c o -
n o m 1 c interests of the workmen, and took up an attitude of
great reserve towards the immediate political struggle, whe-
reas the Socialists-Revolutionary groups called the workmen
to a revolutionary struggle for political freedom and a re-
public. These first groups occupied themselves with agitation
and the promotion of political street demonstrations, and did
not shrink from the inevitable collisions with the police, bea-

101

ring in mind the necessity of developing a revolutionary move-
ment among the people and believing that a bold revolutio-
nary initiative might stimulate this movement. ?

Later, when the S. R. P. was founded in 1901, it acknow-
ledged the necessity of a sharp political struggle, and, in
reply to the repressions of the Tsarist Government, decided to
retort Willi direct attacks on responsible high officials and
members of the ruling house — in other words expressed it-
self in favour of terroristic tactics.

It must be pointed out that the terror of the S. R. P. had
nothing in common with the „red terror" of the Bolsheviks.
The S. R. P. considered legitimate the execution of such ene-
mies of the people as the Ministers of the Interior Sipiagiii
and Piehve, or the Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich, be-
cause they were responsible for the policy of crushing all
freedom and the most elementary civic rights, for the unexa^
pled oppression, starvation and beggary of the labouring
masses and for the brutal treatment of all attempts to shake
off this yoke or even to help the people to understand and
improve their position.

Only the utter impossibility of calling to account before
the people, parliament or law courts the autocratic rulers of
Russia, and the defencelessness of the whole population, and
especially of the artizan class and socialist parties, who were;,
of course, hidden „underground", against the arbitrary actions
of these rulers, justified, in the eyes of the S. R. P., tide appli-
cation of the bloody methods of murder to Tsarist ministers
and the administrators of the Tsarist political police, ■ v -

Moreover the Party always took upon itself the responsi-
bility for all the terroristic acts accomplished by it and an-
nounced them to the public. - -^' n?- :^:

The S. R. P. always strongly condemned tactics^ of po-
litical murder in countries with democratic administration and
with freedom of press and public opinion. It alw^ays declared
that it would at once stop the terroristic struggle if the elemen-
tary political guarantees existing in all civilised countries were
adopted in Russia.. It always categorically condemned post-
revolutionary terror — that is to say the capital punishment
add murder- of the defeated representatives of the old regime.

102

The S, R. P. took the view that the victorious working class
could and should be magnanimous, and sought not to follow
the example of the French bourgeois revolutionaries of 1793.
Both morally and politically, the terroristic acts of the re-
volutionaries, who went to certain death in order to strike
down some tyrant of a day like Plehve in the very centre of
his authority and surrounded by clouds of secret police and
gendarmes, were in the sharpest possible contrast to the Che-
Ka order for the shooting of some former police officer or
even minister, grand duke or even Tsar, disarmed, defence-
less, impotent and pitiful.

Whereas the terroristic fight of the S. R. P. against the
autocracy produced noble self-sacrificing, and profoundly
humane heroes, absolutely devoted to the Revolution, the Ex-
traordinary Commission of the Bolshevik regime opened a
broad career for the morally obtuse, malicious, gloomy fana-
tics, or simply for criminal sadists — not for heroes but for
hangmen.

It should be recalled that down to 1917, the Bolsheviks
always condemned the S. R. P. for its terroristic methods, and
in general regarded it as a party of the petty bourgeois „in-
telligentsia", which in consequence of a misunderstanding of
the term called itself „socialistic".

The chief theoretician of the S. R. P. has been Victor
Tchernoff.

The most conspicuous members of the Party from the
time of its formation have been: Michael Gotz, Shishko, La-
zar^ff, Volhovskoi, Gershuni, Breshkovskaya, Minor, Ruba-
novitch, Sletoff. '

The position of the Party during the revolution was de-
termined by its tiiird conference (Moscow, May, 1917), fourth
conference (Petrograd) December, 1917) and afterwards by
the eigth (May, 1918) ninth (June, 1919), and tenth (July,
1921) councils of the Party. An appreciation of its policy
and tactics also requires a familiarity with the resolutions
and letters of its Central Committee, which, in consequence
of the impossibility of convening a party conference under
the conditions of the' Soviet regime, was obliged to take in-
dependently important political decisions. , ,

103

From the resolutions of the sitting of the Party in 1917,
we adduce those referring to the War, to the International
and to the Provisional Governments:

„The present War arose from the soil of the imperialistic
efforts of the ruling classes of all the great states to gain fresh
markets and to subject to economic and political influence the
small and backward states — efforts which exploited for
their objects both the aspirations of nationalities so far with-
out selfdetermination and the remnants of unconscious chau-
vinism. Up to the present, the ruling classes of the bellige-
rent countries still cherish these annexationist ideas which
are inimical to the interests of the labouring classes.

„We call upon the peoples of the belligerent countries to
compel their governments and ruling classes to abandon an-
nexationist efforts, and to take the question of peace into
their own hands. For our part we declare that the imperia-
listic objects of the War are foreign to the Russian people and
the broad masses of its workmen and peasants, and that the
Russian democracy did not and does not desire annexations.

„Starting from these positions, and adopting the stand-
point that there is an internal coincidence between the ideals
of international socialism and the vital interests of the labour-
ing masses in Russia, the third conference of the S. R. P. takes
the view that at the present moment the following are the
immediate tasks of Russian democracy.

„I. As a termination of the War is possible only through
the united efforts of the democracies of all countries, the S.
R. P. recognises it to be necessary: ^

„a) That the socialist democracy of Russia should coop-
erate by all means in its power in the creation of a revolutio-
nary international and the convening of an international so-
cialist conference for the establishment of a solidarity of the
labouring classes of all countries and for the working out of
definitive conditions of peace and measures for putting them
into force.

„b) That the socialist democracy of Russia should ap-
peal to the democracies of all countries to unite under the
watchword: ,Peace without annexation or indemnities*, and
to use their influence on their governments in this sense.

104

„2. Recognising that the Provisional Revolutionary Go-
vernment has taken as the basis of its foreign policy the pro-
gramme advanced by the Russian democracy, of peace with-
out annexation or indemnities and of the realisation of the
right of all peoples to self-determination, and believing that
the question of disputed areas should be solved by a plebis-
cite of the populations, held under international guarantees,
the S. R. P. considers it necessary that the Provisional Re-
volutionary Government should, at the earliest possible mo-
ment, take all steps in its power to secure the adherence of
Russia's Allies to this peace programme. By similar inter-
national agreement, the financial burdens of the War, whether
on states or private individuals, should be laid on the ruling
classes of all countries directly or indirectly mvolvcd *n the
War. ;

„3. The third conference of the S. R. P. demands that the
Provisional Revolutionary Government should take all steps
necessary for a reconsideration and denunciation of the se-
cret treaties concluded by the Tsarist Government with Allied
states, and should be guided in its future foreign policy so-
lely by the interests of the labouring population of Russia and
the interestst of tiie democracy of the whole world.

„4. Believing that the fulfilment of these tasks is possible
only on an international scale and by the united efforts of
the labouring masses of all belligerent states, the conference
of the S. R. P. categorically rejects any separate peace or se-
parate armistice as fundamentally in conflict with the methods
of international action.

„5. Condemning the irresponsible propaganda of the chau-
vinist press in favour of an advance at any cost — which, in
view of the inadequacy of the organisation of the revolutio-
nary army, might lead to disastrous adventures with conse-
quences most dangerous to the whole cause of the Russian
Revolution — and seeing in this newspaper campaign an
attempt to dodge the question of war aims, the third conference
of the S. R. P. nevertheless regards as inadmissible the intro-
duction into the Army of an agitation against any move for-
ward from the trenches and the refusal to obey the orders of
the revolutionary Government, and believes that both the
one and the other can only obstruct the creation, growth

105

and strength of a new revolutionary army capable of proving
a trustworthy support for the entire new foreign policy of
Revolutionary Russia.

„6. So long as the War continues, revolutionary Russia
makes concessions to the necessity of a strategic unity of
front with the Allies, and at the same time lays stress on the
necessity of a unity of political front, holding these two ne-
cessities indispensible factors in the same problem, namely
that of opening a road to peace on the principles of the self-
determination of nationalities and the abandonment of the
policy of annexations and indemities.

„7. While insisting that the campaign for a general peace
should be carried on with all energy, the conference of the
S. R. P. at the same time, in the interests of that very peace
campaign and in the interests of the defence of the Russian
Revolution and its political and social gains against attacks,
whether from within or without, considers it necessary that
the Army should be brought into a condition of full military
preparedness, and that in it forces should be created capable
of active operations for the fulfilment of the tasks of the
Russian Revolution and its people's policy".

Relationsliip to the Provisional Government.

,,In the creation of a coalition Provisional Government,
the conference of the S. R. P. sees, on the one hand> fresh
evidence of the growth of the strength of the labouring de-
mocracy of the towns and villages, and, on the other hand,
an inevitable step in the urgent struggle against the menacing
danger of a complete ruin of Russia — a struggle necessary
to strengthen the new revolutionary Russia, this first citiadel
of the , third estate* in contemporary Europe.

„At the same time, it expresses the firm conviction that
only a further grov/th in the country of the organised public
forces of the socialist democracy can change . still further
to the advantage of the socialists the balance of power in the
Provisional Government. .. ^

„Believing the fundamental political tasks of the moment
to consist in the reorganisation of the local authorities on the

106

principles of the organic authority of the people, and in the
preparation of the elections for the Constituent Assembly,
the conference of the S. R. P. rejects and condemns everything
that might obstruct or delay their fulfilment by adventurist
attempts to seize power, either localy or in the centre, and all
irresponsible agitation in this direction.

„The third conference believes that only a firmly united
socialist group inside the Provisional Government, sub-
ordinating all the actions of individual ministers to the ge-
neral line of policy adopted by it, and working under the
control of our workmens preliminary parliament, as con-
stituted by the Soviets of soldiers' and peasants* deputies and
the responsible socialist parties, can cope with the urgent
problems of utilising the strength of the workmen's demo-
cracy to extend the gains of the Revolution during the period
of transition, in which politicaly privileged Russia is no longer
in a position to deal with vital and pressing questions, while
the socialist party is not yet compelled to take power into
its own hands.

„So long as, by the dicision of the socialist democracy,
the group of socialist ministers remains in the Provisional
Government, and through it asserts the will of this demo-
cracy and its* control over the entire internal and external
policy of the Government, the latter is assured the most ener-
getic support' in the carrying out of its measures against all
the elements of disruption and disorganisation. And the con-
ference of the Party believes that, in taking this path, the So-
cialist-Revolutionary Party will combine tlie two tasks of
participating in the present work of construction and making
ready for the future and thus preparing its triumph in the
Constituent Assembly, and, at the same time of fulfilling the
great international task of the Russian Revolution, namely
3ie termination of the War by the forces of the workmen'^s
International, . resuscitated by the Russian Revolution.

The Third Conference considers it necessary that the So-
cialist-Revolutionary Ministers should take as the basis - of
tiieir activity the resolutions adopted by the supreme Party
organ, that is to say, by the present fully-authorised as-
sembly of representatives of the Party organisations.

107

„The International.

„I. The Third Conference of the Socialist-Revolutionarv
Party, guided by the views expressed in the resolutions which
it has adopted as to the present juncture and the War, decides
to send its delegates:

„1) To the international socialist peace conference con-
vened on the initiative of the Soviets of workmen's ,peasants*
and soldiers* deputies.

„2) To other prelimmary conferences, including the third
Zimmerwald Conference, the task of which is an exchange of
views among the labouring democracies of the whole world.

„3) The Conference commissions the Central Committee
to nominate with this object suitable delegations".

The S. R. P. took part in the drafting of the famous appeal
to the working classes of all nations (March 14, 1917), issued
by the Petrograd Soviet of Workmens' Deputies, in which, in
conjunction with the Social-Democratic Mensheviks, it had
a majority.

In harmony with this attitude, the Party took an aciive
share in the preparation of the Stockholm international con-
ference, for which it sent N. Rousanoff abroad in 1917. It
will be remembered that this conference did not take place,
for the Entente governments refused to give the delegates of
the socialist parties of their countries the necessary passports.

/ In April— May, 1917, the S. R. P., as well as the Social-
Democratic Workmens' Party, decided to send representatives
into the Provisional Government, the president of which was
at first Prince 0. B. Lvoff, but afterwards A. F. Kerensky, The
Bolsheviks still accuse the S. R. P. of „betraying the proleta-
riat" and allying itself to the bourgeoisie. In reality, the
Party entered the Coalition Cabinet at that time in order to
save the new-born and still weak democratic regime from
possible pressure of the counter-revolution. At that date, the
socialist parties, which had just emerged from underground,
had not yet succeeded in organising themselves, and had to
support tiiemselves on the masses of the workmen just libe-
rated from the yoke of three generations of servitude, could
not take the plenitude of power into their own hands.

108

The revolution developed during a war with a most
powerful enemy, and the Government was confronted by thp
exceedingly complicated and dangerous problem of carrying
out the necessary changes without upsetting the front or
destroying the national economic life, and at the same tune
of conducting with the Allies negotiations for stopping the
War according to principles acceptable to all. Civil war at
that moment would have been excessively dangerous and
would have risked the loss of national independence, or at
any rate such a weakening as might have brought to nothing
all the conquests of the Revolution and made restoration
possible.

Consequently the S. R. P. tried to conclude an agreement
with the left and democratic parties of the bourgeoisie, in
order to compel the reactionary nobility, and also the right
and imperialistic parties, to submit to the revolutionary
nation.

However this agreement was not attained. The bour-
geoisie, in its mass terrified of the Revolution, preferred to go
with the nobility and not with the working class, to iskt
sides with the monarchy against democracy and the republic.
Bourgeois members of the Cabinet raised all sorts of obstacles
to revolutionary changes and sabotaged the cause of the Pro-
visional Government. Prominent leaders of the bourgeoisie,
who had at one time associated themselves with the Revoluf
tion, began to conspire with military counter-revolutionary
circles. (This led to the memorable action of General Kor-
niloff against the Provisional Government).

The Coalition Government experienced several crises.
The S. R. P. continued to participate in the Government, but
made its cooperation dependent on definite conditions, one
of which was an active foreign policy directed to the earliest
possible conclusion of a general just peace. With this ob-
ject, the Pariy insisted on the summoning of a conference of
the Allied States, at which the standpoint of revolutionary
Russia would be expounded, and on the convening of the
Stockholm socialist conference. The Central Committee of
the Party did not consider it possible for the socialist par-
ties to take power entirely into their hands on the eve of
the elections to the Constituent Assembly. It held that only

109

this body could definitively settle the state structure of Russia
and appoint a „legal" Government responsible to the Con-
stituent Assembly. On the very eve of the convention of the
Constituent Assembly, the Bolsheviki effected their coup of
October 25, 1917, and at once began to put mto force the
regime of terroristic dictatorship.

The Party condemned this seizure of power, but did not
refuse to negotiate with the Bolsheviks as to the possibility
of a compromise for the formation of a purely Socialist Go-
vernment. Such a compromise proved to be impossible.
With support of armed force, the Bolsheviks wished merely
to dictate their own will. The S. R. P. decided to transfer
the struggle to the field of the elections to thfe Constituent
Assembly, on the convention of which the Bolssheviks at first
strongly insisted, but which they rq)udiated when they saw
that the S. R. P. had received a majority in the elections.

The Fourth Conference of the Party (December, 1917) ex-
ipressed itself against coalition with the bourgeois parties,
and even condemned the policy of the Central Committee,
which, in the opinion of the gathering, had unnecessarily
prolonged the coalition experiment. Here is the resolution
of that meeting: ,^, .|,>

„The Conference of the S. R. P. is compelled to point
out: I. That the Central Committee in the course of its six
months work has not always acted in correspondence witii
the terms of its appointment to be the organ managing the
activity of the Party. The Conference is of the opinion that
the Central Committee has not in due measure fulfilled its
duties of controlling the activity of the members of the Party
occupying the most responsible positions in organs of State
administration and managing organs of the democracy. Thus
the Central Committee has made the Party responsible to the
labouring masses for a policy not sanctioned by it, for events
as to which it was not even kept informed, for actions in har-
mony neither with the Party's programme nor its -collective
will. In this way the Central Committee has involuntarily
contributed to the masses' loss of faith in the Party, its watch-
y/ords and its workers" .

Another resolution of the same Conference runs:

110

„The present Russian Revolution is popular and artizan
in character, and is making the first breach in the stronghold
of bourgeois property and bourgeois law. It opens the transi-
tional historical interval between the epoch of the full bloom
of the bourgeois system and the epoch of socialist recon-
struction. This truth was not sufficiently appreciated by the
managing sections of our socialist democracy, and in con-
sequence of this our Revolution has not yet found for itself
a proper and permanent track.

„It was necessary for the socialist democracy to go
through the experiment of a mixed government with elements
from the old privileged classes. This experiment had com-
pleted its work so soon as it had made manifest to the whole
nation that the old privileged elements cannot reconcile them-
selves with a solution for the benefit of the labouring people
of those broad problems which have been raised by our re-
volution, especially in the sphere of an immediate and radical
rearrangement of our agrarian relationships. From ihat
moment, a repetiton and prolongation of these experiments
with the coalition had as their results merely that the creative
work of the revolutionary power was stopped, the struggle
for a democratic peace was conducted with insufficient energy,
and the attempts to meet the urgent dem.ands of the country
for a firm authority, not being accompanied by a simultaneous
satisfaction of the burning needs of the labouring population,
remained without success and caused discontent.

„Unfortunately our Party did not show sufficient deter-
mination at difficult junctures, and did not take power into
its own hands at the right moment, but left it till the end in:
the hands of a weakened and colourless Government, which
had lost its popularity and fell an easy prey to the first con-
spiracy".

„The Party is bound", says the last paragraph of the
Conference's resolution, „to concentrate on the maintenance
of all the rights of the Constituent Assembly and to organise
forces sufficient, in case of need, to take up the fight with cri-
mial attacks on the supreme will of the people, whatever may be
the source of these attacks and the watchwords by which they
are. disguised." . :

./';■

Ifl the elections for the Constitiieitt Aisstoblyy tfeei S. JJ.
P., as we have already said, received an overwhelmjttg majo-
rity. There voted for the Socialist-Revolutionaries:2Q 893 734
electors (52^^), for tiie^BolsheyifeVQ 023,963 (25^); lor aH
the bourgeois parties together^ 4 130 376 (less than one se^
■verith)! ''-'1' ' • ^^ '■'.■ - '?i> '■' .-•^■r-^'..-'- •;■ /.■ .•:'„-K':m^'

We Willi not here dwell on an interpretation oi the e\to^
connected with the first and only sitting of tiie Constiltieit-
Assembly, which was elected byutiiversal suffrage undet an'
electoral law prepared by the Provisional Government of Ke^
rensky. But, in order to put an end to the calumnious inveili^
tions of the Communists, it is necessary to adduce the actii^tt
text of resolutions adopted by the Socialist-Revoluti0nai;|m2K
jbrity of the Constituent Assembly on January 5, 1918/ ujider
the presidency of Victor Tchemoff; We have already citei i8i^
first ten clauses of the Agrarian Law. We now reproduc^thlil
resolution as to peace and the law as to the Federative/Con-
stitution-of JRussia. ':B, ■ ■ ,

' „In the name of the peoples of the Russian Republic, the
ail-Russian Constituent Assembly, expressing the inflexible will
of the nation that the War should be terminated at once by the
conclusion of a just general peace, adresses itself to the States
allied to Russia with the proposal that they should join in
^e determination of precise conditions for a democratic peace,
acceptable to all the belligerent nations, iiH order that these
conditions may be submitted in the name of the whole coali-
tion to the States carrying on war against the Russian Re-
public and its Allies. • ■'■'■.,.•:■■■■■ ■^■■:t^,;

t,The Constituent Assembly is filled with unshakable con-
fidence,that the efforts of the peoples of Russia to put an end
to the disastrous War will awake an unanimous echo in tiie
peoples and Governments of the Allied States, and-that their
efforts will speedily bring about a peace guarantejeiiig the wel-
fsure and honour of all the belligerent peoples: t^ j^*

^ V |?„Expressing^in the name of the peoples of Russia its

regret that the negotiations with Germany, begun without pre^

^liminary agreement with the Allied democraciesj have assumed

^ the character of negotiations for a separate peace, the Cbhsti-

tuefit Assembly,: in the name of the peoples of: the^Riissian Fe-

der^ive RepliIniG, pr6l6nis^ the ^ruce thatr has been ^tablis^

112 ,

Les d^fenseurs strangers en proces de Moscou.
Die ausiandischen Verteidiger im Moskauer ProzeB.

K-Vandervelde - ^.BaH>'^epBe.^h;le

K.Rosenfeld - K. Po3eH$enL;^

Th Liebknecht -T. JIhCkhcxt

A. Wauters - A. Borepc ,

Foreign counsel at the Moscow trial. -^ HHOCTpaHHue aamMTHHKH
Ha MocKOBCKOM-b npouecct, — ZahraniCni obhijcov^ na moskevfkem

procesu.

Nous avons Quitt6 Moscou pour mieux ddfendre ceux t|U*on y ;
accuse. Nous portons la cause des S. R. devant le tribunal supreme i.
de Topinion socialiste; et. des k present, nous donnotts a tous les
travailleurs ce mot d'ordre: ,

^ Pas de condamnation 4 mort au procis de Moscou. Ce seralent
des assassinats politiques. Emil Vandervelde

Wir haben Moskau verlassen» um besser di^ zu verteidigen, die.,
dort angeklagt sind. Wir iibertragen die Angelegenheit der Sozial-
revolutionare vor das hochste Gericht der sozialistischen offentlichen
Meinung; und unverzuglich geben wir alien Arbeitern die folgende
Parole: Es sei niemand im Moskauer ProzeB verurteilt! Es wSre
sonst ein politischer Mord. Emil Vandervelde

We left Moscow better to defend the accused. We appeal to
the Supreme Court — the Socialist Community. On the spur of the
instant we deliver this parole to the workers of the world: let there
be no death sentences at the Moscow trial! it would be political
murder. Emil yandervelde

Mh ocTaBwnH MocKBy, hto6m nyMme aamHTHTb xiiXT*, Koro
TaMi> o6bmhhioti>. Mh nepcHOCHM'b jsfkio couianHCTOBT>-peBOJiK)uiQ-
Hep0BT> Ha Bbicmitt cyAi* couiajiHCTM4ecKaro MHtniJi ; h HeMejvte^HHO
yce Mfai aacMT, BcifeM-b pafiOHMM-b cjitayibmiH napoJib; — fla ne ^yaetft
ocy»AeHiii na CMepTb bt» Mockobckomt. npoi^eccfe ! 3to Cujio 61.
nojiMTMHecKHMi yOlHCTBOMT*. 3MHJib BaHaepBeJIb;^e

Opustili jsme Moskvu, abychom Upe obhijiU t^ch, kteri tarn
obviAufi. PfenaSime vie socialistik-revoluciondi^fl pFed nejvySli soud
socialistickeho min^ni a okam2iti jsme vSem dilnikt[^m dali toto
heslo: .,Nech( v roosk«vsk6m procesu neni rozsudkfi smrtiC* Byla by
to politicki vra2da. Emil Vandervelde

hed/airid. takes upon itsefi the further cohduet of the riegotia- '
tion6 with the enemy States, in; order, while defendirig the in-
terests of Russia, to obtain, in harmony with the will of the
people, a general democratic peace.

„The Constituent Assembly declares that it will show
every possible cooperation in the itiitiative of the socialist pafri
ties ^of the Russian Republic -for the immediate convention of ah"
international socialist conference with the object of bringing
about a. general democratic peace. « .

" „The Gonstituent Assembly resolves to choose froin its
membership a plenipotentiary delegation to conduct .negotia-
tions with represeptatives of the^ Allied States, and to submit^
to them represefita,tions ^s to a joint clearing up of ti&e condi-
tions for an early conclusion bf the war, and also to put into-
force the decision of the Constituent Assembly on thie question
of peace negotiations with the states carrying war against us.

,,Under the direction of tha Constituent Assembly:, this de- '
legation will proceed immediately to the fulfilment of the du-
ties laid uoon it."

pyNDAMENTAL LAW AS TO THE STATE
CONSTITUTION OF RUSSIA. — ^

,^In the name of the peoples farming the Russian State,
the all-ilu^sian Constituent Assembly resolyes: The Russian .
State ii proclaimed a Russian Democratic FederatiYe Repu-.
blica^ uniting in indissoluble alliance the peoples and areas
Sovereign within the boundaries laid down by the federative '
•constitutipn";- -^vr. -• -^ ■•-•-^^^^'•'^.'; j^ ■ '^^\/^!.^:■'l\^..::iv.t:

"After the Constituent ^ Assembly had proclaimed these
laws, the Bolshevik sailors, by Lenin's orders^ dispersed it
for alleged „betrayal of the proletariat" and alliance with the
estate-owners, bourgeoisie and monarchy. The ignorant and
deluded sailors, excited by conscienceless demagogues, really
V,iaiew not what they did".

Simultaneously other sailors fusiladed in the streets a '
peaceable demonstration of workmen, killing the S. R. de-
puty Loginoff, the woman Socialist-Revolutionary Gor-
bachevskaya and others.

8 113

After the violent dispersal of the Constituent Assembly
by the Bolsheviks, the S. R. P. decided to try to carry on
within legal bounds a political struggle for its interpretatioiii
of the taks of the Revolution. But it very soon became appa-
rent that the Bolshevik Government would not tolerate any^
kind of free criticism, and, in order to maintain its authority,
v/as prepared to have resort to the worst forms of violence--
not even stopping short of infractions of its own „soviet'^
constitution. The Socialist-Revolutionaries' papers were
ruthlessly suppressed, their printing works were closed, the
socialist organisations were broken up, elections to the So-
viets were carried out in an atmosphere of unparalleled ad-
ministrative pressure, and Soviets with a strong socialist oppo-
sition were systematically dissolved. By degrees, the soviet
workmen's selfadministration was abolished and replaced by
a hierarchical, centralized beaurocracy; which merely bore the
name of „soviet system", but in reality had nothing in com-
mon with it. International socialism is now sufficietTt^i^
acquainted with the bankruptcy of the Bolsheviks' Coinitftj-
nistic experiment, with the destruction of industry, with the
ruin of the villages, with the disappointment of the masses
with Bolshevik demagogy, and with the struggle which the
Bolsheviks are waging against the nation for ffie maintenance
of tiieir own unrestricted power. As is well known, they
maptain themselves only with the help of terror, violence,
the ruthless suppression of any kind of opposition, an unexam-
pled political yoke, under which the nation is condemned to
live in apathy, to sink slowly, and to perish of hunger and
epidemics, interspersed with (elemental tumults and revoltsj
the blind outbreaks of the hungry, oppressed and tormented
masses.

In the summer of 1918, the conflict of the Government
against the people assumed the form of civil war. The S. R. P.
was on the side of the people. On the Volga and in tiie Urals,
it organised peasant's and workmens' regiments, which
fought against the Bolsheviks on the so-called Front of the
Constituent Assembly. They were helped by the Czecho-Slo-
vak legions, formed from war prisoners, which Trotsky had
tried to disarm on the demand of imperial Germany. At
that time, the Bolsheviks, who had signed the disgraceful se-

114

parate peace of Brest-Litovsk, had already invited German ca-
pitalists to Russia, returned them their confiscated property,
granted them fresh concessions, and in general coquetted
with the German imperialists. Count Mirbach was in Mos-
cow, and the representative of the Soviet power in Berlin,
Joffe, secured an audience of Kaiser Wilhelm.

The Ukraine, the South of Russia, Poland, Finland, the
Baltic Provinces, were in the hands of the Germans. Politi-
cally and economically, the independence of Russia had re-
ceived a severe blow, and a victory of imperial Germany
threatened the whole future of our country, threatened the com-
plete destruction of all the attainments of the Revolution, a
restoration of the old monarchy and the return of the estate-
owners.

The attitudes of the S. R. P. on the position of Russia and
Europe was expressed at that time in a declaration of the Cen-
tral Committee, in which it was pointed out that the S. R. P.
had begun a struggle for the overthrow of the Bolshevik dic-
tatorship and for the cancelling of the disgraceful Brest-Li-
tovst peace, which had sold Russia into slavery to imperia-
listic Germany. With that object, the Party intended, on the
reestablishment of the sovereignty of the people, to renew the
war against Germany „in agreement with the peoples" of
France, England, Italy and America.

The S. R. P. suffered failure in its struggle for a reestab-
lishment of a democratic Government, for in its rear counter-
revolutionary bourgeois-monarchical groups prepared a con-
spiracy, and simultaneously with the Bolsheviks attacked the
democracy, which had begun to organise itself round the
banner of the Constituent Assembly on the Volga and in Si-
beria. Later, when the fight of the Bolsheviks against Deni-
kin was already going on, the S. R. P. suspended its armed
struggle against the Bolsheviks, in view of the danger of a
restoration of the old regime, and concentrated all its forces
on the struggle against reaction. We append the correspon-
ding resolutions of the Ninth Council of the Party, which met
clandestinely at Moscow in June 1919.

115

COUNTER.REVOLUTIONARY DANGER.

„Confronted by the terrible danger threatening all the
attainments of the Revolution, half of which have been sacri-
ficed by the Bolshevik reign of terror and by the hands of Kol-
chak, Denikin, Youdenitch and others representatives of inr
temal and external reaction, and taking into consideration the
actual balance of forces, the Tenth Council of the S. R. P.
approves and confirms the decision, come to by all properly
authorised Party organs, that for the present the armed
struggle against the Bolshevik Government should be sus-
pended and replaced by an ordinary political struggle.

„In view' of the utter incapacity of that Government to
rise above its narrow party interests, and, in the name of the
safety of the Revolution, to make concessions with the object
of the creation of a general socialist* and revolutionary
front, the S. R. P. is at the present time deprived of the possi-
bility of combining its struggle against the attempts of coun-
ter-revolution with the struggle against the Bolshevik autho-
rity, and must transfer the cenre of its struggle against Kol-
chak, Denikin and the rest to the territory of these, and, un-
dermining their cause from within, fight with all the wea-
pons used by the Party against the autocracy in the front
ranks of the revolt against political and social restoration.

„The S. R. P. lays all responsibility for a possible success
of the counter-revolution oh tiie suicidal policy of the Bolshe-
viks, who, by breaking the unity of the political front of tiie
democracy, have sapped the possibility of a united military
front of the democracy against counter-revolution. At the
same time, the Tenth Council of the S. R. P. considers it ne-
cessary -to open the eyes of the labouring, people to the real
character of the regime which the reaction of Kolchak, Deni-
kin and the others is bringing with it."

At the same time, the following resolution as to interven-
tion was passed: ^

INTERVENTION.

„The Ninth Council of the Party recalls the solemn de-
claration of the Eighth Council, that within the Party ranks
there are no tendencies to seek support for the internal re-

116

naissance of Russia outside the country's own material, intel-
lectual and social resources."

Thus even then the Party rejected all idea of allied in-
tervention, that is to say interference in our internal affairs.
In view, however, of the task of annuling the Brest peace and
reestablishing the Eastern Front, the Party regarded the
appearance of Allied forces on Russian territory admissible,
though only on the same footing on which Russian auxiliary
troops had fought in the ranks of the Allied Armies on French
territory.

„Maintaining its negative attitude to intervention, the
S. R. P. could not but admit that, after the victory of the
Allies and the collapse of the Brest-Litovsk , Peace, grounds
for the further presence of the Allies on Russian territory iio
longer existed.

„Moreover, taking into consideration the melancholy ex-
perience of recent attempts at Allied intervention, which haye
degenerated into experiments for transforming whole dis-
tricts of Russia into objects of colonial policy and dominions
of the forces of restoration, the Ninth Council of the Party
expresses an emphatic reprimand to all Party comrades
abroad who, in spite of repeated decisions to the contrary,
advocate or request intervention, and lays upon them the
obligation to suspend such activity as inconsistent with their
further membership of the S. R. P.

„The Ninth Council charges, the Central Committee to
take most energetic steps to induce the socialist parties of
all countries to compell the imperialistic governments to stop
the predatory raids on Russia, the blockade, and military
and material help to the Russian counter-revolutionaries.

,,At the same time, the Council of the Party thinks it ne-
cessary to declare that it would regard a recognition by the
Allies of the Kolchak Government as an act of hostility to
the Russian democracy".

On the question of the international, the same Council
adopted the following resolution:

The International.

„The settlement after stupendous mundane catastrophes
like the World War inevitably brings with it a vast social

117

dislbcation, shaking in a number of countries the very fbun-
dations of the old agrarian and plutocratic order.

„In this new era of revolution, an intensified organisa-
tion of counter-revolutionary forces is taking place all over
the world, and is basing itself on the present govemmenis
of the European victor countries, which are trying to trans-
form the League of Nations into a screen for a new ,Holy
Allience of the BourgeoisieV into a new form of hegemony
of Ally imperialism.

„In this connection, the Ninth Council of the S. R. P.
regards tiie immediate reestablishment of the International
as the chief task of present day socialism throughout the
world.

„This reestablishment must be not merely a formal re-
vival of the connection between all the national socialist par-
ties, estranged, and in some cases disorganised, by the War,
biit a more intrinsic renaissance and renewal of socialism,
and its transformation into a real world force, capable of
steering a course towards revolution and opposing the dan-
gers of organised world reaction.

„The first test of the effectiveness and figthing efficiency
of the revived International must be its irreconcileable struggle
against the attempts of the victor countries to impose on Siei
vanquished countries such conditions of peace as will only
arouse in the latter an unassuageable thirst for revenge, and
therefore contain in themselves the germs of fresh wars. The
means for effecting this are the utilisation of all favourable'
tendencies in the League of Nations, and the exercise of an
energetic pressure on that body by the effective manifesta-
tion of the disapproval of the masses of the nations.

„The watchword of the agitation among the masses must
demand the overthrow of those governments or cabinets
which, through their acquisitive nationalistic appetites, place
themselves in opposition to the intense thirst of all nations for
a durable peace. At the same time, the Ninth Council of the
Party emphatically condemns the policy of creating a third
Communist International, which it regards as a manifesta-
tion of sectarian policy, objectively directed to a breach of
the unity and to a disorganisation of the socialist movement."

118

For an appreciation of the position of the Party at the
present time, reference must be made to the resolutions of
the Tenth Council (July, 1921), and the declarations of the
Central Committee:

1. THE PRESENT JUNCTURE.

„The World War, intensifying and revealing all the class
antagonisms and the profound antitheses hidden in bourgeois
society, placed before the labouring masses in its full scope
the question of a radical reconstruction of that society, which
concealed in itself a permanent menace to the progress of the
human race and to the most vital interests of the labouring
classes.

„At the same time, the War, which has revolutionised
the labouring masses and facilitated the conquest of political
power by them, especially in the defeated countries,, exhausted
to the utmost limits the productive forces on both sides of
the fronts, and has called forth a general crisis in the econo-
mic life of the world, and in this way has very much restric-
ted the possibility of immediate material gains from the Revo-
lution.

„A11 this justifies the assertion that, independently of its
forms, the direct struggle for socialism, into which the world
has entered as a result of the War, will be prolonged and
stubborn, and that in its process the labouring masses will
be involved in a number of conflicts for the extension of their
rights in the administration of production and exchange, and
for the enlargement in these spheres of collective rigths at the
cost of the rights of individual enterprise.

„Confirming the accuracy of this repeatedly promulgated
analysis of the essential character of the present historical
epoch, the Tenth Council points out that the Bolshevik Go-
vernment, by four years of policy disastrous to the cause of
Russian and international revolution, has placed Russia in the
immediate danger of imperialistic intervention, and has extra-
ordinarily complicated the struggle of international demo-
cracy for socialism, without, however, in any degree making
tois, struggle less urgent, or changing the general perspec-
tives of tiie present epoch."

1T9

In its characterisation of the policy of the Bolsheviks, the
Counsil states:

„While thus recognising the necessity and inevitability
of the coming revolutionary movement, the Party must bear in
mind that the numerous risings of the labouring masses and
country populations against the Bolshevik dictatorship have
always suffered defeat through their complete lack of organi-
sation and ihe imperfect political maturity of the masses, who,
in their struggle against the Bolshevik Government, have So
far been unable to rise to an apprecitation of general national
problems and of the methods necessary for this struggle.

„The disintegration of democracy in town and country,
its psychological weariness, its profound disillusionment in
its hopes, its demoralisation, and the remarkable change of
class by wide sections of the labouring population in conse-
quence of the monstrous experimentation of the Bolsheviks
— all these things constitute a most serious menace to the
cause of the Revolution, and are, in fact, the submerged rock-
on which it may ultimately be wrecked for a long time to
come

„Therefore the first and fundamental task of the Party
for the immediate future is the work of organising the active
forces of town and country, and the crystallization of the
ideas of the broad masses of the labouring class.

„In this work, the Party must put forward its fundamen-
tal watchword — the demand for a consequential system of
government by the people, as the only political system guaran-
teeing the development of popular self-help, this condition
essential to the victory of the revolution and the socialist
system.

„Without, none the less, failing to take advantage of any
opportunity of open work in those public organs which, un-
der the pressure of vital necessity, the Bolsheviks have crea-
ted, or will be compelled to create, the Party must expose the
class contradictions contained in them, and emphasize its
position as the „Third Estate", the estate of the labouring
democracy.

„As in the first preparatory period, so also in the fur-
ther struggle, the Party must strictly keep at a distance all
elements of ihe Right, and refuse to take part in any coali-

120

tioii with the bourgeoisie, even though it should be only
temporary or tactical.

„In this connection, the managing Party organs must
adopt the most decisive measures to frustrate all future at-
tempts to impose on the Party methods and aims which it has
rejected, and to prevent the mere possibility of a separate po-
licy on the part either of individual comrades or of entire
organisations."

The resolution of the Tenth Council on the International
runs:

„Confirming the message sent by the Central Committee
on April 23, 1921, to the Vienna Bureau of the International
Confederation of Socialist Parties, the Tenth Council of the
S. R. P., for its part, instructs the Delegation to Foreign
Countries to take the most energetic steps to put it into force.
At the same time, the Council charges the Central Bureau of
the Party, elected by it, with the conduct of all negotiations in
the name of the Party for the reestablishment of a militant re-
volutionary-socialist International".

Special interest attaches to the declaration on the gene-
ral policy of the Party drawn up and signed in prison by the
leaders of the Party and members of the Central Committee,
now condemned by the Bolsheviks to „conditional capital
punishment".

In a letter to the new Central Bureau of the Party with
reference to the resolutions of the Tenth Council, they write
(September 5, 1921):

„Dear comrades!

„We are delighted to hear of the successful issue of the
Tenth Council of the Party.

„This tremendous victory, both moral and political, of
our Party shows beyond any doubt that the brutal hunting-
down and persecution which have lately descended on the
Socialist-Revolutionary Party have been powerless to break its
moral spirit and quench its revolutionary enthusiasm. Hun-
ted underground, swept from the open arena of political con-
flict, chased out of all legal organisations, persecuted by the
Government with unparalleled cruelty, crucified and reviled
with calumny and dishonouring falsehoods, the Socialist-Re-

121

volutionary Party has never for a moment loosened its grasp
on its glorious old banner, or abandoned its revolutionary
post, but, in the name of revolutionary socialism and demo-
cracy, has ever fought in the front ranks of the working class,
both in tiie days of revolutionary storm and in the days of
calm. To what foul devices, to what unworthy methods, to
what dishonourable means has the Government not had re-
course in its struggle against the Socialist-Revolutionary
Party? From calumny to provocation, everuthing was mobi-
lized, and thrown into that front by the Bolshevik Govern-
ment. And not only to enemies, but also to fainthearted
friends, it sometimes seemed that the Party would not wea-
ther the storm of persecution, would not stand up under the
blows showered upon it, but would fall crushed by their
weight, bleeding, torn to pieces, and* scattered in the dusi

„The tenth Council is tiie best and most eloquent answer
both to enemies and faint-hearted friends. The very fact of
the convention of a numerous Council at the very height of
the Bolshevik terror throughout the area of Soviet Russia, is
irrefutable evidence of the tenacious vitality of our Party.
To the destruction of the Central Committee, the Party re-
plied not with confusion and panic but by drawing stilK
closer its thinned ranks, and by a fresh mobilization of wor-
kers among the proletariat and the labouring peasantry".

Discribing the position of the country they say:

„Two paths were open to the Bolshevik Government;
two possibilities lay before it. It could break abruptly with
the old methods of dictatorship rule and with the old de-
vices of uncontrolled party-monopoly administration, return
to democracy, extend its hands to all socialist, parties, in
order, by joint efforts, supported on the liberated mdependent
initiative of the labouring classes themselves, to save from
shipwreck everything that it was still possible to save out of
the gains of the revolution by the free and heroic efforts of
the will of the labouring classes.

: „0r it could capitulate to foreign and native capital, and,
with ashes or its head and a rope round its neck, proceed to
a capitalistic Canossa. The Bolshevik Government was
called to the first path by the thunder of the Kronstadt guns
and by innumerable voices of Petrograd and Moscow prolfe-

122 .

tarians, by the more intelligent portion of the labouring
peasantry, which, disillusioned by partisan warfare and re-
volts, hungrily sought an issue from its agonizing dilemma,
and by the socialist parties, who were merely reflecting ac-
curately the feeling of the working class.

„But the Communist Party, obsessed by the single idea
of keeping power, whatever might happen and at whatever'
cost, rather than make terms "with the socialist democracy
and effect a reconciliation with the working class, prefered
the path of capitulation to native and foreign capital, the path
of agreement with the international and its own new and
old bourgeoisie.

„In this is the whole meaning of the Bolshevist ,new
economic policy*,^ so loudly proclaimed by Lenin, and ad-
vertised by the corrupt pens of venal official publicists as a
,wise strategic manoeuvre*, as ,a deep thrust at the rear', as
a cunningly devised turning movement*, which through
the blossoming out of petty industry, credit, and banking,
through the restoration of the tenth volume of the Code of
Laws and the reestablisment of the right of private property,
through the consolidation of the foundations of the bourgeois
system, will eventualy lead to communism.

„But the Bolshevik Government, with one hand restoring
the economic relationships of the bourgeois system and wi&
the other smothering with ever greater ruthlessness the in-
dependence and expression of will of the labouring demo-
cracy, is preparing for itself a successor in the bourgeois
reaction**.

Characterising the policy of the Bolshevik Government
as a „Bolshevist Thermidor**, the authors of the letter say:

.„The Tenth Council is quite right in .declaring in its
fundamental resolution that the main central task brought
imperatively to the front by the recent development of events
is the overcomming of the dictatorship of the ruling party,
the political struggle with the autocracy of the Central Com-
mittee of &e Communist Party.. In this lies the fundamental
essence, the vital nerve, the supreme content of the present
juncture.

„But for this reason, that point of our platform must be
formulated with the utmost clearness. In the past, the So^

123

cialist-Revolutionary Party, as impersonated by its Central
Committee, has more than once declared that, although the
termination of the Bolshevist dictatorship is the fundamental
object of all the political efforts of the Party, it would be far
from welcoming every such termination, and would not
support every struggle, against this dictatorship. Repudiating
'in the most emphatic manner the idea of a coalition wiih
bourgeois groups, the Central Committee thereby definitely
emphasised that the only acceptable termination of the Bol^
shevik dictatorship would be one brought about in the name
of the democracy and by the forces of the proletariat and the
labouring peasantry. .

„Dissipatihg the illusion of the possibility of a peaceful
democratic evolution of the Bolshevist dictatorship, the Socia-
list-Revolutionary Party must fix the special attention of the
masses on the danger of the replacement of the Bolsheviks by
reaction, and on the necessity for the proletariat and the
labouring peasantry, at the decisive moment, not only of
establishing the authority of the people in the place of the
Bolshevist dictatorship, but also of defending it against any
attacks by reaction.

, „Precisely for this reason, the Central Committee inde-
fatigably emphasised that in its irreconcileable struggle against
the Bolshevik dictatorship it thought possible to call the
labouring classes only to those methods of struggle which
perhaps do not promise decisive success, but, on the other
hand, in the very process of struggle, favour the solidarity,
the organised unity and the intellectual consolidation of the
working class. Starting from this standpoint, the Central
Committee has consistently rejected the methods of partizan
warfare and revolts, as breaking up the unity of the workers,
fruitlessly squandering the strength of the people, dissipating
the revolutionary energy of the working class in a number
of detatched outbreaks, and thus rendering it impotent.

„We do not doubt that the Council was in favour of
^e main features of the policy sketched out by us above. In
this belief we are confirmed by those points of the resolutions
in which the Council decisively condemns the replacement of
a class revolutionary socialist policy of the labouring masses

524

either by the amateur political schemes of separate groups
abroad, who, against the clearly-expressed will of the Party,
are again trying to inveigle it into the path of fruitless agree-
ment with bourgeois elements, and merely retarding its work
among the artizan classes of Russia, or by the adventures of
individual ,cells* which have broken off from the parent stem
of the Party, and, at their own risk and expense, have re^
course to detatched insurrectionary movements. But preci-
sely for that reason, we consider it necessary to point out a
certain ambiguity of formulation in that part of the resolution
where it is stated that the question of a revolutionary over-
throw of the dictatorship of the Communist Party becomes
the order of the day with all the force of vital necessity. In
order, to avoid inconsistency with the whole spirit of what
has been set forth above, ,revolutionary overthrow of the
Bolsshevik dictatorship* must be understood to mean only
the termination of that dictatorship by the forces of .tiie re-
volutionary labouring masses, brought about by the inde-
pendent political action of these masses, without any kind
of alliance with groups with class hostility to the working
class. Clearly it would be the greatest mistake to put into
this formula any kind of implied recognition of the methods
of partizan warfare and revolt. We fear that ambiguous and
confused formulation of this point may generate some un-
certainly in the minds of inexperienced and politically untried
comrades. .

„The disintegration of the working class, the lack of
direction ruling in its ranks, the absence of strong class or-
ganizations of the workers, the profound dissensions sown
by Bolshevik policy between the workers of town and country
— all this compels the Socialist-Revolutionary Party, in the
existing internal and external situation, to take as its primary
and fundamental task ,the drawing together of the labouring
masses in party organisations and class associations for the
process of strenuous propaganda, agitation and organization
work*. All tiie energies of the new managing organ of the
Party, elected by the Tenth Council, should now be applied
to the solution' of this problem. Any undertaking of the
workers independent of this organ will inevitably prove pre-
mature, and will only lead to the fruitless squandering of the

T25

living manoeuvring force of the Revolution — the working
class.

„But this momentary renunciation of the method of
armed conflict, at a time when the disintegration of the la-
bouring masses keeps victory out of the hands of the revolu-
tionary democracy, which took its principles already from the
Ninth Council of tiie Party, by no means implies a weakening
of the political struggle that the Socialist-Revolutionary Party
has carried on and will carry on for the termination of the
Bolshevik dictatorship. With you, we are inclined to regard
the Tenth Council as a rallying cry for all the dispersed
Party forces, and as a signal for the mobilization of new
workers to take the places of those torn out of the ranks of
the Party by the terror of the Bolshevik Government". "-^^

Welcoming the decision of the Tenth Council to join the
Vienna International, they add: ^ --^i.

,,We hope that you will remind the Partys' Delegation to
Foreign Countries how great is the responsibility pi the
task at present before it In connection with the enormous
weakening of the forces of the Republic caused by the famine,
certain imperialistic governmenls are again considering plans
for military intervention, by which the Bolshevik Government
could be crushed wath armed force and the whole Russian
Revolution put into irons. The Delegation to Foreign Coun-
bries must avert this new danger by an energetic campaign
among the western proletariat against the interventional
schemes of their Governments. It must, however, just as de-
cisively take action also against hidden forms of intervention
under the guise of relief for the starving population of Russia.
When we call to all classes of America and Europe to save
the lives of millions of our citizens — we are asking from
them bread and only bread.

„Dear to us as are the ideas of the Constituent Assembly,
democracy and government by the people, we emphatically
repudiate any interference of foreign Governments in our
struggle against the dictatorship of the Communist Party.
These ideas must be realized by the working people, and not
introduced into Russia on the points of foreign bayonets or
bartered for by foreign goverrmients as a condition of relief
for the starving.

126 -

„At the Tenth Council the sentries who have fallen from
the ranks were replaced by fresh ones. And, handing over
to you now the responsible post in which you are called to
uphold the old revolutionary traditions of the Party and its
glorious old flag, we must also hand on to you our parole
and watchword:

^Socialism and democracy* — such is our watchword.

„Union of the labourers of town and country in the

struggle against the Bolshevik dictatorship, in the name of the

political enfranchisement of the working class — such is our

parole".

The following persons signed this letter: Members of
Central Committee of the Socialist-Revolutionary Party: A. R.
Gotz, M. Y. Gendelmann, M. A. Vedeniapin, D. D. Donskoi,
M. A. Lichatch, C. V. Morozoff, D. F. Rakoff, E. M. Ratner,
E. M. Timofeyeff, M. S. Tsetlin.

Such in broad general lines is the political position of
the S. R. P. We cannot, of course, give in a short article an
exhaustive illumination of the role of the S. R. P. in the Re-
volution, but what we have said here will suffice to dissipate
the calumnious inventions which have been circulated abroad
against the Party by Bolshevik agpts.

S. R. P. Delegation to Foreign Countries.

Qotz, a Tepoque oCi il purgeait 10 ans de bagne, sous le tsarisme.
Ootz wShrend der lOjalirigen Kerkerstrafe unter dem Zarismus.

Le president du tribunal revolutionaire lit la sentence de mort.
Der Vorsitzende des Revolutionstribunals verliest das Todesurteil.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "The Twelve who are to die : the trial of the socialists-revolutionists in Moscow"

See other formats